Tributes to the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead died on Sunday last at the age of 82. Roy Harris Jenkins was born on Armistice Day in 1920. He grew to be one of the most influential political figures of the 20th century. Politics ran in his family. He was the son of Arthur Jenkins, Member of Parliament for Pontypool from 1935 to 1946. His father had gone to work as quite a small child down the pit and was later, unjustly, imprisoned for his political activities.
	Lord Jenkins read PPE at Balliol, where he took a first, having had the inestimable benefit of a grounding in education at Abersychan Grammar School. During the winter of 1940, he and some of his friends began to feel that they were the only members of the Labour Club at Oxford not committed to the Communist Party line. Lord Jenkins therefore took part in a split from the Labour Club to help form a breakaway organisation. His main memory of that move was a long correspondence with Iris Murdoch, his opposite number in the old Labour Club. Murdoch would write, "Dear Comrade Jenkins"; he would reply, "Dear Miss Murdoch". Forty-seven years later, he was able to award her an honorary degree from Oxford University.
	Lord Jenkins was a captain in the Royal Artillery and worked as a code breaker on the Enigma machine. During that period, he became committed absolutely to the idea of a united Europe.
	He entered the House of Commons in 1948 and soon became one of the most powerful and formidable debaters in that Chamber. He became a Minister in 1964. In 1965, when he was only 45, he was appointed Home Secretary by Mr Wilson. He was very pleased to be the youngest in that grave office since Churchill in 1910. He was a liberal Home Secretary, who worked tirelessly to remove flogging from the penal code and the prison discipline system. He liberalised, or helped to liberalise, the laws relating to homosexuality, divorce, abortion and immigration. He abolished theatre censorship and was responsible for broader laws against racial discrimination. He introduced the concept of suspended sentences and majority verdicts, both of which were extremely controversial at the time, and yet the latter certainly proved a great success.
	Mr Wilson appointed Lord Jenkins Chancellor of the Exchequer in November 1967. It was a very difficult time. The pound had been devalued, and in his three years of service in that great office, he instituted a programme of austerity to resolve the financial crisis. His party's position on Europe at that time was at odds with his personal views. In defiance of the party majority, he supported Britain's entry into the European Community. In 1972, he resigned as Deputy Leader when the party seemed to be turning its back on Europe. In 1977, he became President of the European Commission, having successfully led the referendum campaign in this country.
	In 1981, Lord Jenkins became one of the Gang of Four, who co-founded the Social Democratic Party as a proposed and anticipated alternative to the Labour Party. His three co-founders are, of course, all now Members of this House. He became Lord Jenkins of Hillhead in 1987 and—perhaps one of the most distinct and discreet pleasures of his life—the chancellor of his own university in the same year.
	As well as being one of the key political figures of the 20th century—if that were not enough achievement for a single life—Lord Jenkins was a prolific and successful author. His works on Gladstone, Dilke, Asquith, House of Lords reform and, latterly, his best-seller Churchill, show us a man with a deep historical sense and a significant literary gift. He knew that politics is not simply the art of the possible, but also the science of the moment—but he knew that both had consciously to be located in a wider, more profound, historical context.
	In his autobiography, Lord Jenkins summed up the House of Lords by saying:
	"It is rather like Adlai Stevenson's comment on flattery: it is all right provided you do not inhale".
	I think that he did inhale a little; he certainly added to the fun of life here, as well as to the nature of politics. He had many accomplishments, although he was not a Welsh speaker. There is a good phrase in that ancient language: "Dyn a ddyn"—such a man that was.
	We shall miss Lord Jenkins a good deal, and more than we presently understand. We send deep condolences to those he loved and cared for.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the tribute paid by the Leader of the House to Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. From time to time, there appear in politics people whose career and influence stretch far beyond the confines of a single party. Lord Jenkins was such a man. Can anyone in the 20th century who did not become Prime Minister have exercised such a major impact on our politics? By his resolute chancellorship he saved the Labour Party as a party of government after the devaluation of 1967. Along with the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and Lord Owen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, he pointed the way to the future for the Labour Party a dozen years before that was recognised and accepted in Labour ranks.
	The charge was also laid that by forming the SDP, Lord Jenkins had made Thatcherism possible. I would not necessarily see that as a vice in the noble Lord. But he was, with typical farsightedness, reacting to a reality; namely, that state-led socialism was a dead end and radical reform was needed for Britain to prosper.
	Roy Jenkins was never afraid of change. Being a son of a Welsh miner, he presented as a quintessential Englishman and for five years after 1982 became a Scot. It is a little remembered fact that Hillhead, the seat of his great by-election win, was represented for nearly 35 years—until 1982—by my father. It was so little remembered, in fact, that when Roy Jenkins was telephoned and told "Galbraith has died", he thought that it was the economist J.K. Galbraith rather than his passport back to Westminster.
	Obviously, I see Hillhead in a very personal light, but no one could doubt the courage and conviction with which the noble Lord threw himself into the uphill battle for that unlikely seat. He was always a man of courage, and one of deep and lasting convictions. Like them or not, his great and often controversial reforms as Home Secretary in the 1960s will last and, like it or not, he took bold, public and often unpopular stands on issues such as deeper European integration, proportional representation and entry into the euro, over which he did not hesitate and from which he did not waver.
	Lord Jenkins's term as President of the European Union reflected the deep respect for the noble Lord across Europe. His cherished chancellorship of Oxford reflected his deep love for Oxford and his distinguished achievements as an historian. Like Rosebery's memoir of Lord Randolph Churchill, his books on Asquith and Winston Churchill will live long as rare examples of great political biographies by a leading politician.
	It is perhaps no accident that Asquith and Churchill thrived in eras when parties were made and unmade, and great issues scored across the conventional lines of politics. Lord Jenkins lived in such a time. He helped to mould that time. That he was also a person of such charm, humour and zest for life, and someone with such unashamed enjoyment of the good things and the civilised virtues, make him a man all of us who had the good fortune to know him will long remember. Our hearts go out to his family and his friends, but they can take consolation in the remarkable journey on which Roy Jenkins led them, and the respect and affection that he won.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, from these Benches and on behalf of my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, who is abroad, we are grateful for the remarks made by the Lord Privy Seal about Lord Jenkins. We share the love and sadness of his wife Jennifer and his family.
	Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—Roy Jenkins—was a statesman and a man of letters of Victorian proportions, and many things besides. The noble and learned Lord has set out his career and achievements, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has added his own generous comments. Above all else, Roy Jenkins had a great capacity for friendship and loyalty. In return he could draw warmth and affection beyond expectations. His death leaves a huge gap in the lives of many of us. It will not be the same again.
	Lord Jenkins last attended the House on 7th November when illness was casting a shadow over his plans. But he hoped that, with progress, he would return to Westminster soon after the end of the Recess. Meanwhile, he continued to follow the pages of Hansard, even including the Licensing Bill in Committee. Rather less surprising, he would join with his visitors for a genial lunch either at his home in East Hendred or in a well chosen country pub. He was working on an article about Hugh Gaitskell, the 40th anniversary of whose death falls later this month. On Friday last, when his immediate health problem had apparently been resolved, he signed a contract for yet another book, in this case about J. F. Kennedy.
	Just over two years ago, when faced with cardiac surgery, Lord Jenkins recognised the possibility that he might not be able to complete his book on Churchill. But he recovered and, astonishingly, very soon he was writing again—500 words a day. When it was completed it was a triumph.
	Lord Jenkins was a Member of Parliament in either the Commons or the Lords for almost 50 years, with a break only when he was President of the European Commission. The 1950s presented a bleak political prospect for Back-Benchers in opposition, but he attended almost every day and piloted through his Private Member's Bill on reform of the law on obscene publications. Even in 1972, when he resigned as deputy leader of the Labour Party, he was determined to rebuild his outstanding reputation in parliamentary debate. Later again, in 1986, after another difficult time, he was chosen as Spectator "Back-Bencher of the Year". He was resilient throughout his career.
	Lord Jenkins led the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords with great distinction for almost 10 years. He continued to attend the House on most days, although, as he put it:
	"I do not often trouble noble Lords these days".
	In fact, as we know, most noble Lords were happy to be troubled by Lord Jenkins, whether remaining on the Benches or coming into the Chamber to listen. He made a characteristic speech about reform of the Lords a year ago on 10th January. Another speech—his last—on his fears about war with Iraq was on 24th September. Both were very different but both were rich in quality.
	All his speeches had much in common. He would find historic analogies; he would find humour and especially paradox; he would find precision of words—usually some unexpected ones; and, above all, he would demonstrate the force of argument. Most of his speeches were short. He was rather proud about that. Some speeches were said to be magisterial and others baroque, but they were all written in his own hand. They were his own speeches, set down carefully on cards. He also had a rather special gesture of his own, difficult to describe and difficult to copy, although we all tried.
	I am tempted to set out again his distinguished record as a reforming and civilised Home Secretary, as a tough Chancellor of the Exchequer in difficult economic times, his Charlemagne Prize, his role as Chancellor of Oxford University and his Order of Merit. Then there was his special relationship with the United States, which he found no contradiction with his strong European ties; and there was his crucial role as one of the founding fathers of the SDP and the Liberal Democrats. But the catalogue is much too long for this occasion.
	Lord Jenkins was a great luncher—never on his own, and sometimes in the Barry Room—and his evenings during the week were filled with social and literary occasions. He was also in demand, if I can put it that way, with those who wanted a stylish, well-chosen oration at a memorial service.
	Lord Jenkins died shortly after 9 a.m. on Sunday, two days ago. During the previous evening, he was putting the final touches to another book—on Franklin Roosevelt. I think he would like one of those anecdotes about him with which he so enriched and entertained his own biographies. At breakfast on Sunday, his wife, Jennifer, asked him what he would like. The reply became his last words:
	"I would like two eggs lightly poached".
	Roy Jenkins would have enjoyed that.

Lord Owen: My Lords, from the Cross Benches it is a pleasure to endorse what was said by the previous three speakers from the three political parties. For me, it is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who was undoubtedly Roy's longest-standing political friend—a frank and faithful friend and someone who contributed greatly to his political life.
	I do not want to cover all the different things that have been said today in the House and I speak only of two legacies. One is permanent, and that is his contribution to Britain's membership of the European Community. I suppose that three people will be judged by history to have taken this country fully into the European Union: Prime Minister Edward Heath for getting us through the parliamentary legislation and Prime Minister Harold Wilson for carrying the full-hearted consent of the British people in the referendum. But without the contribution of Roy Jenkins, we would certainly never have gone in at that time.
	Lord Jenkins played a crucial part in rallying 69 Labour MPs to vote. It was a very difficult vote in very difficult circumstances. I admit that, at the time, I was rather tempted by an abstention, but he convinced me unequivocally that that would be falling below the level of events. Then, when he resigned as deputy leader and when, again, it was tempting—as I was tempted—to go for the referendum amendment which we were being asked to support, he made it abundantly clear that, if we did so, we would ditch our chances of going in at that time. We had to face the issue of sustaining parliamentary authority. From the moment that he resigned, any doubt that we would go in was over. That was a great achievement, and he followed it as president of the Commission and in many other ways. That, I believe, is a permanent legacy—one of which historically he would be extremely proud.
	It is difficult to be sure that the other legacy will last. As a Cross-Bencher now, it is interesting to watch the political parties exaggerate the divisions. But in the 1980s there was no exaggeration of the divisions in party politics. They were immensely deep and covered every aspect of our political life: defence, foreign and economic policy. Looking back—how long the new politics of a greater readiness to find a compromise, a consensus, between the parties will last I do not know but it certainly started during the 1990s—there have been genuine and real differences of opinion and long may they last: they are the stuff of politics and of democracy. But the bitterness, the division and the inability to find a consensus and common ground were absent—perhaps that divisiveness started in the 1970s but it went on certainly all through the 1980s.
	In his Dimbleby lecture, in being the first leader of the SDP and in being an SDP MP for five years, Roy helped that party and the country to make what I hope will be a long legacy of ending that raw, vicious divisiveness which damaged our country, our economic strength and our political weight in the world. I should like to think that that will be as important a legacy as the one that he gave to this country through our membership of the European Community.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, from these Benches I want to say quite simply but as strongly as I can that we shall miss Lord Jenkins. His was, indeed, A Life at the Centre, as the title of his autobiography puts it. His was a presence that we felt on the Benches opposite, even when he was just sitting there quietly. Despite, or perhaps because of, his great distinction, he was, from a personal point of view, not only friendly but enormously and warmly encouraging.
	Of his political career, I make a single point: his willingness to put his democratic principles to the test by standing for election. Whatever future historians may make of his decision to leave the Labour Party and found the SDP, he was prepared to go to Warrington and Glasgow to ascertain the will of the people. In a similar spirit, he was willing to submit himself for election as Chancellor of the University of Oxford—a post which we know gave him the most enormous pride and pleasure.
	Of his role within this House, some words of Dean Stanley, which he quoted, about Gladstone's parliamentary style apply no less to him. Stanley wrote:
	"One great charm of his speaking is its exceeding good humour. There is great vehemence but no bitterness".
	At a more trivial level I always marvelled at his capacity to read his notes, in the most minuscule handwriting on tiny cards; and when he was clearly having great difficulty reading them, allowing the eloquence of his body to carry him through.
	Finally, there is his style as a person and as a writer, as befits someone who was President of the Royal Society of Literature. My fellow Bishop, the right revered Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, described one sentence in his book on Gladstone as:
	"Laced with self-deprecating irony and a charming and paradoxical immodesty."
	One of my favourite sentences occurs in his biography of Churchill. In 1915 Churchill went on holiday to a farmhouse in what was then countryside near Godalming.
	"We lived very simply here",
	he wrote to his brother on 19th June,
	"But with all the essentials of life well understood and well provided for—hot baths, cold champagne, new peas and old brandy".
	This combination of relish for the simple pleasures of life described in such an elegant and finely-balanced sentence entirely fits the late Lord Jenkins. His was a constructive, productive life right to the end. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, pointed out, he signed a contract for a major biography only last Friday.
	Our sympathy goes to Dame Jennifer and other members of his family and close friends as we thank God for his outstanding achievements in so many spheres and for the fact that his life, lived with such vigour and purpose, enhanced the political life of the nation in so many ways. My prayer is that as he enjoyed the hospitality of the earth so he might, with even greater relish, enjoy the hospitality of heaven.

Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I should like to add a brief footnote to the eloquent tributes paid, which deals with Lord Jenkins's interest in higher education. When the Earl of Stockton died in December 1986 the University of Oxford lost its chancellor. I was then vice-chancellor. We organised an election. It was a three-cornered fight. Lord Jenkins won the contest.
	Mention has been made of style. When Lord Jenkins assumed office he organised a special degree ceremony, as the rubric stated in the Gazette,
	"to mark the start of the period of office of the new Chancellor of the University".
	Noble Lords will be the judges of whether the list of those who received degrees is characteristic of the Jenkins' style. He began with two degrees by diploma, the first to His Majesty King Baudouin, Knight of the Garter, King of the Belgians, and the second to His Excellency Professor Francesco Cossiga, President of the Italian Republic.
	He then moved to the second tier: honorary degrees. In the list as doctor of civil law was the former Taoiseach of Ireland, Dr Garret Fitzgerald. Across the Atlantic was Robert McNamara, former president of the World Bank. Then came one of our own ambassadors, a close friend, ambassador in four embassies: Warsaw, Bonn, Paris and Washington—you will have guessed—Sir Nicholas Henderson. As Doctors of Letters were Sir Isaiah Berlin, Order of Merit; Dame (but not comrade) Iris Murdoch; and Arthur Schlessinger Junior. As Doctor of Science was emeritus Professor Dorothy Hodgkin, Order of Merit. That gives the flavour of the list and of the Jenkins' style within the university. Others were included in the list for reasons of piety or tradition.
	On becoming a Member of this House, the noble Lord threw his energies into trying to improve the Education Reform Bill, which was then passing through this House, and made many notable contributions to that. I shall refer to only one, which became known as the "Jenkins amendment"; a clause on academic freedom. Noble Lords will recall that academic tenure was being abolished. Fears were expressed in the university that that would lead to people being pushed out of their posts if they were writing heterodox or controversial views or experimenting in doubtful areas. Great alarm was spread. Lord Jenkins moved the amendment which embodied these simple words; that the university commissioners, to whom relevant powers were given, must have regard for the need,
	"to ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions".—[Official Report, 19/5/88; col. 471.]
	That was put to a vote and carried by quite a narrow majority. Surprisingly, no subsequent effort was made in another place to remove it. Perhaps it was thought it would be like voting against motherhood. That passage stood and Lord Jenkins gave tremendous support to the academic community by having achieved that. He made many subsequent contributions to education Bills, but I say nothing of that today.
	Back at Oxford, he was an outstanding chancellor, as everyone agreed. He was dignified and witty on all public occasions. Behind the scenes and in private he was a constant support, a friend and a wise counsellor to successive vice-chancellors.

Saville Inquiry

Lord Howell of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the cost of the Saville inquiry into the Bloody Sunday incident has yet exceeded £150 million; and, if not, whether both Houses of Parliament will be notified when it does.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no. The total cost of the inquiry to government was £94.8 million up to the end of November 2002. It is estimated that the final cost will be £155 million, subject to the outcome of the judicial reviews of decisions on lawyers' costs. The costs of the inquiry have been made available and will continue to be provided to Members of either House on request.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Does he recall—I am sure he does—not just Bloody Sunday but bloody Friday all those years ago? Does he recall, as many of us do, the massacres at Warren Point or the murder of 20 civilians in 1974 on the M62? Looking back over the history of Northern Ireland does the Minister not agree that it has been filled with appalling atrocities, of which Bloody Sunday was one? It seems disproportionate that the huge sum mentioned by the noble and learned Lord should be spent on that inquiry on that incident, particularly as it is a second inquiry. Does he not think that men of peace in Northern Ireland and here should now think about better ways of spending such vast sums for the security and prosperity of the people of Northern Ireland, including the people of Derry?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is a second inquiry but over many years serious questions have been raised about the adequacy of the first inquiry, and those questions remain unanswered. We are at a stage where a vast amount of evidence has been taken. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has given evidence and that Sir Edward Heath is shortly to give evidence. Now is not the moment to draw a close to this inquiry.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord be good enough to say whether or not the figure he quoted includes the expenses of the Ministry of Defence? If not, can he say what such figure amounts to? Is not the noble and learned Lord beginning to share the view that perhaps the only beneficiaries of this long drawn out and miserable inquiry will be those who seek every opportunity to deride and sneer at the Armed Forces of the Crown? Does he not think that they deserve better of us all than that?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the figure I gave is the total figure as at the end of November of last year. The costs of the Ministry of Defence are included in that figure. They are £21 million. Those costs are rightly discharged if allegations are made against those who serve in Her Majesty's services. I know the noble Lord will agree that if allegations are made against those in the Armed Forces and others in public services they must be protected and have their interests looked after. That is the £21 million.
	The noble Lord described the inquiry as slow and miserable. It is slow. In the nature of things it is bound to be. But these allegations—as I said when I replied to the noble Lord's question on similar lines—are most serious. They are allegations of state crime. If they are right, they should be exposed. If they are wrong, it should be demonstrated that they are wrong.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, is the Lord Privy Seal aware that following the recent allegations and revelations about the IRA bombing of Claudy in 1972—the same year as Bloody Sunday—there are growing demands across the community in Northern Ireland for a full inquiry into the Claudy atrocity? Are the Government likely to accede to that request? If not, why not?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, is quite right, there are serious allegations about the IRA and the alleged involvement of a Roman Catholic priest. The noble Lord will know, as I do, that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is being absolutely fearless in carrying out its own independent investigation, liasing, as it rightly should, with the relatives of those who were so cruelly murdered.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, this inquiry is now entering its sixth year. I confess to having spoken against its being set-up. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that if, after five years of diligent plodding and questioning, the truth has not been arrived at, it never will be? Does he further agree that we should have a short inquiry as to why so much money has been spent to achieve so little?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I said—obviously it is necessary to repeat myself—in answer to the question asked a short time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, there are lessons to be learned about the structures of inquiries. I referred to the concern of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. There is a case for making inquiries much more inquisitorial. But the timetable of this inquiry, the nature of the evidence and the structures and procedures are essentially governed by statute and by the discretion of the chair of the inquiry, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville. Is it seriously being suggested that we should bring this inquiry to a halt at this moment? If it is, I would have to say that I profoundly disagree.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is some disparity between the sum that has been spent on the inquiry and the fact that the people of Omagh are still unable to secure a civil inquiry into what happened to them, which they have to pay for? Is it not possible that the Government might, whatever they decide to do about Bloody Sunday recognise that against that enormous figure it is extremely difficult to defend a position where nothing is done to find out the truth and bring to justice the people who committed the murders in Omagh?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that the relatives of those who were murdered in Omagh are taking civil action against the alleged perpetrators. That is a very effective way of getting at the truth because automatic discovery is available. I understand that that action is continuing. If I am mistaken, I shall give way to any of your Lordships who have better knowledge.

Primary Care Trusts: Appointment of Non-executive Directors

Lord Chan: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare that I am a non-executive director of a primary care trust.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the performance of the National Health Service Appointments Commission in appointing non-executive directors of primary care trusts is satisfactory.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government are confident that the National Health Service Appointments Commission is performing satisfactorily. In its first year the commission made over 1,700 appointments.

Lord Chan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his soothing reply. Is he aware that the unhelpful advice given by the head of the appointments commission—that non-executive directors should reduce their involvement in primary care trusts—has been totally contradicted by the findings of the NHS Confederation? Only two out of 70 primary care trust chairmen felt their colleagues were spending too much time and interfering with the work of full-time staff. Does not that serious lack of perception by the appointments commission indicate the need for a review of its services to PCTs, many of which are still without their full complement of non-executive directors?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is being a little unfair to the appointments commission and Sir William Wells. When he appeared before the Public Administration Select Committee in June last year, he made clear the commission's view that perhaps the level of time commitment was too great by some non-executive directors and chairs. He thought that that level of time commitment might discourage people from a wide range of backgrounds applying to be non-executive directors. The response from existing non-executive directors does not share Sir William's view and the commission is giving the matter further consideration. I think that it is right for Sir William to draw attention to the dangers of non-executives taking on an executive role. Executive directors are employed to do that job. I also believe that in handling a large number of appointments the commission is doing an effective job.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, following the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Chan, is it not the case that many people are reluctant to come forward for these non-executive jobs because of the very poor remuneration, as many of them have to spend up to 60 hours a month on those jobs?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I disagree. First, the remuneration for non-executive directors is £5,294 per annum. The chairs receive a range of honorarium from just over £16,000 to just over £20,000, depending on the size of the organisation they chair.
	These appointees do immensely valuable work. But they are not executive appointees. They are there to bring the public's view to these bodies. I believe, as someone who has worked with these people for many years, that there is a great danger in their undertaking too many duties and not giving enough space for executive directors to do what they are paid for.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Minister said that the time commitment was supposedly an issue. I agree with that. I declare an interest in that one of my family works on the commission and my husband serves as an interviewer of possible applicants.
	The Minister said that he had asked people about the time commitment. Does he agree that one of the problems is the age of non-executive directors serving on primary care trusts? There are few under the age of 45. That is because the hours and times of the meetings are such that if someone is in employment they cannot give up the number of hours to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred. When does the Minister think that the Secretary of State will be able to look at the question not just of the actual time commitment, which is not clear enough often for young people in employment, but also at the possibility of changing hours and having meetings at different times, which would enable young people to have jobs and to take on this commitment?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the noble Baroness. As to the recommendations of the commission, I understand it will now be submitting advice to Ministers in the spring of this year. The noble Baroness referred to the number of younger people appointed to the boards of NHS organisations. I should point out that 13.8 per cent of all appointees come within the 36 to 45 age group and 1.8 per cent are in the 35 and under age group.
	I agree that it would be useful to have more younger people on those boards. I do not think that, given the current time requirement, one can reasonably expect people fully engaged in a career to be able to give that time. That is why I personally, in the light of my own experience of working with board members, think that Sir William has a point here.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the relationship between governance and management is complex, as anyone in public life knows? Current problems are largely a result of the current stage of development of PCTs. As each side—executive and governance—begins to be more confident of its role, that problem will in all likelihood disappear.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope that it will disappear, but there are examples of non-executives of existing acute trusts, for instances, which have been existence for many years, who still seem to see their role as more executive than non-executive. It should be made clear, and we shall continue to encourage the appointments commission to make clear, to those people so appointed that their job is not to run the organisation day to day but to provide effective public stewardship. We pay executive directors rather a lot of money to take on those responsibilities and I am clear that it is they who should take on the executive role.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, on a point of clarification, the Minister has now in effect said three times that some non-executive directors are being dysfunctional by taking on executive roles and meddling with executives. Would it not be much easier for everyone if the Government were to specify exactly how many hours they expect non-executive directors to serve per month or per year? That might release some of the younger people who they want to serve on the boards. For example, if they suggested that 10 hours per month and no more were required, companies might be prepared to release good executives to take on non-executive roles in PCTs.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not disagree with the point made by the noble Baroness. Sir William's aim was clearly to specify a general level of commitment that would enable the kind of people mentioned by the noble Baroness to serve on boards. We want to encourage not just senior company executives but people from all walks of life. We should not let an arbitrary rule that they must give a certain amount of time bar good people from applying and being appointed. Equally, we need flexibility. There may be occasions, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley suggested—especially when a primary care trust is starting its work—when we would naturally expect non-executives to give more time. Once trusts are fully established, they should be able to ease off. We clearly need flexibility.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, are the responsibilities in law of the executive and non-executive directors of PCTs the same as they are under company law for commercial directors?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, all the directors, whether executive or non-executive, are corporately responsible for the activities of the organisation. The chief executive will also be an accountable officer. For instance, if the Public Accounts Committee was inquiring into the financial matters of an individual organisation, that officer could be required to accompany the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health to PAC hearings.

Breast Screening

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether National Health Service breast screening techniques are sufficiently accurate.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, no screening test can guarantee 100 per cent accuracy. However, mammography remains the most reliable way to detect breast cancer early.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, too often, harmless changes in breast tissue result in unnecessary removal, with all the associated risks of surgery? What progress is being made to improve the accuracy of screening by using computer technology to store and assess scans?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord's suggestion is right in the sense that seven out of eight women who have an abnormal initial mammogram prove on further investigation not to have breast cancer. The initial test is only an indicator of whether further tests or surgery may be required. As to the use of computer-aided diagnosis, we recognise its potential but it is at an early stage. We are at present monitoring developments. I must tell the noble Lord that in introducing any new technology we must ensure that it is safe and effective.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in this context, in addition to the quality of screening, are not the resources devoted to diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer crucial? All the breast cancer charities still say that the resources allocated to them are not getting through. What is the Department of Health going to do about that?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is fair to say that concerns about funding have been expressed by cancer charities. We are very much aware of that. On the evidence, we are considering the data on cancer investment in the routine returns we receive from the NHS. I must tell noble Lords that there are many omissions and inaccuracies in the current returns. Because of that, we have decided to undertake a special exercise in the NHS to compile investment on cancer to compare 2001–02 with 2002–03. We expect to be able to publish that information in the spring.
	Despite those concerns, there has been a great expansion in the amount of equipment and number of consultants and radiographers employed in the service. That gives us confidence that the future development of cancer services appears satisfactory.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is consideration being given to extending the age group of women undergoing breast screening?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are in the middle of extending screening programmes automatically to cover women aged 65 to 70. The aim is to complete that by 2004. So far, more than 150,000 more women have been invited for screening as a result of the extension. What evidence there is suggests that breast screening for women aged over 70 may not be effective and may even do more harm than good, although there would be benefit for some individual women. Given that, women aged over 70 will be offered free yearly screening on request.

Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in some parts of the country, breast screening services have been suspended because of a shortage of radiologists? What is being done to tackle that shortage?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course, if there is a shortage of staff—whether consultant radiologists or radiographers—that may impact on the screening programme. We are tackling the whole issue of workforce expansion. In fact, the number of consultants employed in cancer specialisms has increased considerably from just over 3,000 in 1997 to 3,860 in 2002. The number of diagnostic radiographers has increased from 10,360 in 1997 to 11,160 in 2001. We are also increasing the number of training places for future radiographers.

Sub-Saharan Africa: Debt

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to move beyond the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries initiative towards full debt sustainability in sub-Saharan Africa.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the recent global economic slowdown and weaker commodity prices pose a threat to debt sustainability in sub-Saharan Africa. The Government have been at the forefront of the international debate on debt relief issues and continue to press for the rapid and full implementation of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. However, debt relief alone cannot guarantee a permanent exit from unsustainable debt and poverty. That is why we are promoting greater effectiveness in the delivery of aid, more open markets for exports from developing countries, investment, and an increase in development assistance.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that full reply. He is right to say that it will be some time before governments can spend as much on health and education as, for example, on the servicing of debt. However, does the Minister accept that there are unrealistic forecasts on which debt sustainability is based? For Mozambique, there is a forecast of 16 per cent export growth per annum, which is almost unobtainable. Such forecasts take little account of emergencies such as the floods that have been experienced and the effect of HIV/AIDS. I hope that the Government can give some assurance that such factors are taken into account.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is right. It is true that, in several countries, there are over-optimistic assessments of the possibility of increased exports. If we consider the fact that the world aid budget is of the order of £50 billion a year, while developed countries spend £350 billion a year in agricultural subsidies, we can see how much scope there is for improvement through world trade.

Lord Renton: My Lords, it has been suggested in the press that the food crisis in Zimbabwe is entirely due to the policy of the Zimbabwe Government. Has the Minister any information on that?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is seldom that there is a single, simple explanation for such an issue. The food crisis in Zimbabwe is partially the result of government policies—but only partially.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister accept that many of us strongly admire the international lead that the British Government consistently give on debt? Does he also agree, however, that if any policy on third world development is to be successful, one of the most crucial issues is the quality of governance in those societies?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Gordon Brown and Clare Short will be glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said; it is undoubtedly true. When we talk about the effectiveness of aid, what we are discussing is whether it actually reaches the people most in need—the people in poverty. That is, of course, an issue of governance.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the HIV/AIDS crisis presents problems on a new scale? For example, Zambia spends three times as much on debt relief as on health, yet 13 per cent of Zambia's children are AIDS orphans and 20 per cent of the adult population live with HIV/AIDS. Does the Minister agree that the crisis has reached the point at which we should be discussing, not debt relief, but debt cancellation?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the problem with all the countries is that poverty is not necessarily the same as indebtedness. For example, Bangladesh is extremely poor—one of the poorest countries in the world—but has little international debt. Debt cancellation is not the way forward. The way forward, as I said in my Answer and as the Government say in their international financing facility, is a clear and binding commitment of additional resources by donors. That may be associated with debt relief but not necessarily so.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, can the Minister elaborate on the measures that Her Majesty's Government propose to enhance the HIPC initiative and offset debt caused by unforeseen emergencies such as the terrible drought and the floods in Mozambique several years ago?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as has been said, the United Kingdom Government are in the lead. Internationally, an additional £1 billion a year has been allocated for the purpose. As, I hope, I made clear, the problems do not arise because the HIPC initiative is not working. They arise because, at the end of the HIPC process, as a result of the slow-down in the international economy and the collapse of commodity prices, countries that have been through the HIPC initiative are still in a position of unsustainable debt.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the enhanced HIPC initiative is working. However, is it not the case that 15 countries have not even reached their decision-point? In other words, a third of heavily indebted poor countries have received no debt relief under the initiative. Does the noble Lord agree that there must be a radical revision of the terms of the initiative, so that more countries can qualify for debt relief in 2003?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the HIPC initiative is not set in stone. It is possible for additional countries to enter HIPC, and it is also true that the conditions—completion dates, for example—can be changed. I have tried to persuade the House that there are huge problems that are not simply questions of the composition of the HIPC initiative; they are more widespread than that.

Zimbabwe

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What financial support they are giving to Zimbabwe in the present food crisis.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Department for International Development has pledged over £47 million for humanitarian assistance for Zimbabwe since September 2001. Some £38 million has been spent. DfID funds food purchases and supports non-food relief efforts, including nutritional surveillance, emergency drugs and support to agricultural recovery. Funding is directed through NGOs and UN organisations. No financial support is provided through Zimbabwe government systems.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It was good to learn of the amount of financial support that is going to Zimbabwe. As the Minister is aware, the situation is exceedingly serious, with 6.7 million Zimbabweans under a serious threat.
	On 3rd December, the United States Government voted 100 million dollars, one of the largest grants ever. Does the Minister judge that the aid that we put into Zimbabwe is commensurate with that? Can she say more about the steps that Her Majesty's Government take to ensure that the aid that goes to Zimbabwe does not go simply to ZANU-PF supporters?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the United Kingdom is the second largest bilateral donor to Zimbabwe with regard to the humanitarian crisis. My right honourable friend Clare Short made it clear in the other place that we would consider other ways of continuing to support the people of Zimbabwe. We also contribute to the aid given by the European Union.
	I must make it clear that there are two different channels for humanitarian relief. Two-thirds of that relief goes through the Zimbabwe Government; one third through humanitarian organisations and, in particular, the World Food Programme. Our aid is channelled through the World Food Programme, and we are confident that it is not being diverted.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the Minister notice the comments made by Comrade Jabulani Sibanda, the regional chairman of ZANU-PF in Bulawayo, on the need for greater transparency in maize distribution? The Sunday Times reported his allegation that maize was,
	"used by the 'big fish' to spin money".
	In other words, the proceeds are being diverted into the pockets of senior politicians. Although I applaud the Government's response to the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa, is the noble Baroness satisfied that there is sufficiently rigorous independent auditing of the distribution of food and sufficient reporting of the alleged illegal diversion and profiteering that is taking place?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I repeat: through the Grain Marketing Board, which has a monopoly, the Zimbabwe Government are responsible for tackling two-thirds of the crisis. The other third is handled through international organisations and the World Food Programme. We are absolutely confident about the auditing processes in place for our contribution, which goes through the World Food Programme and NGOs.
	In a recent by-election, there were allegations that World Food Programme resources were being diverted. That allegation has been investigated and the World Food Programme stopped distribution for a time. With respect to the operations of the Government of Zimbabwe through the Grain Marketing Board, we have no control over that. It is significant that their own people are now making complaints about lack of transparency.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it in any way sensible to give money to the Government of Zimbabwe, who are the cause of the problem? Is it not true that that must be wrong? Is the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, aware—actually she cannot be—that an acquaintance of mine went on holiday to Zimbabwe? As he crossed the border from South Africa, the South African border guard said, "I will bet you that by the end of this evening you will have seen dead bodies".
	And he did. He saw people lying dead of starvation by the side of the road. Does the Minister agree that those dead bodies were directly caused by the Government of Zimbabwe, and that to give the Government of Zimbabwe just one groat is criminally irresponsible?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I have not made myself clear. We are not giving the Government of Zimbabwe any money. We are concerned about the plight of the people in Zimbabwe—nearly half the population is facing food shortages. We are supporting feeding programmes. In November, we fed up to 1 million children through the World Food Programme and NGOs. None of that money is going through the World Food Programme. The World Food Programme has not received 100 per cent of the money that it needs, partially due to donors' concerns about the behaviour of the Government of Zimbabwe.
	Secondly, we are extremely concerned about the possibilities of famine and death in Zimbabwe. An assessment is being carried out now and we shall have the results next week. We believe that the situation will become much worse and that we must do all we can to ensure that people are fed.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, most people who have studied the Zimbabwean situation are grateful for the work done by the Minister and her department. Is the Minister aware that it is impossible to deal with Zimbabwe without having the greatest of respect for its people? We think very badly indeed of the Government of Zimbabwe. But whatever we think, we cannot allow those feelings of distaste to prevent us providing the fullest possible aid to those people who so desperately need it.
	I would like to get my retaliation in first. I recall many of those people chastising the Government for not being strong enough on the cricket match in Zimbabwe taking precisely the opposite view and being bitterly opposed to sanctions on South Africa, especially sporting sanctions. Some of those people are on the other side of the House today.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree. It is an irony that we are spending £47 million in humanitarian assistance in Zimbabwe. It is money which could have gone to development of that country if it had a different government who were committed to promoting the interests of the country and its people.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, it is important that good governance, human rights and the rule of law should be re-established in Zimbabwe, without which the food crisis will get even worse. What steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to persuade the African leaders, including the President of South Africa, Mr Mbeki, to live up to their undertakings under the NePAD and African union treaties to ensure that those human rights and related matters are observed?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, noble Lords will know that our policy is aimed at ensuring a stable and secure Zimbabwe. We shall continue to work with our partners in Africa and other parts of the world in respect of the breakdown of the rule of law, the harassment of the opposition, and the falling away of human rights which have occurred in Zimbabwe. We shall do everything we can to restore the rule of law and human rights. Noble Lords will appreciate and understand that where there is a leader and members of a government who care nothing for their own people—we are seeing the results of that with half of the population needing food aid—it is very difficult.

Lord Judd: My Lords, with reference to the questions by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, would my noble friend agree that while effective government is the long-term answer, as women, men and children are starving, and dying of starvation, the challenge becomes all the greater, not less, to increase our assistance to ordinary people being abused by their own government, and to find ways in which the food can effectively get through? Is there a fuller part that the non-governmental organisations could be playing in this role?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that the NGOs are playing an extremely full role. Noble Lords will know that some NGOs themselves have come under attack in Zimbabwe. We must do all that we can to work with them and support their work—not just the international NGOs, but also Zimbabwean NGOs, some of which are committed to reporting the many human rights abuses in that country—as well as supporting the population with respect to food aid. We shall continue to do what we can.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, is the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, aware of reports by Didymus Mutasa, a senior official of ZANU-PF, that Zimbabwe would be,
	"better off with only 6 million people"?
	Does she agree that selective starvation of political opponents now seems to be the official policy of the Government of Zimbabwe? What are the Government doing to ensure that food aid distributed by Zimbabwe's Grain Marketing Board, which she mentioned earlier, is distributed on the basis of need and not party politics?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of those comments. We are not sure whether those comments have actually been made, but I have seen the reporting of them. If those comments have been made they are appalling. I repeat what I said earlier. We have no control on food aid going through the Grain Marketing Board, over which the Government of Zimbabwe have the monopoly. None of the UK or other donor resources is going through that channel. Our money is going through the World Food Programme and other NGOs.

Business of the House: Standing Order 41

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on 14th January to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Harris of Richmond to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Grenfell.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [HL]

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Implementation of future revisions to CFE Treaty]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Rawlings: I shall be brief. The Bill confers a power to make further amendments to the 1991 Act should they be required to implement future amendments to the CFE Treaty. I raised this issue during our Second Reading debate. I wish to express my concern that any such amendments will not be addressed in primary legislation. Is this not yet another example of the Government removing business from the Floor of the House where, quite rightly, important matters can receive your Lordships' full attention and input?
	As the CFE Treaty deals with sensitive and important issues, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, would explain why the Government have taken the decision to implement any future changes by order.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: When we discussed the issue at Second Reading, I indicated to your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government had sent out a memorandum on this subject to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I also indicated that I wanted to listen carefully to the committee's views and in the light of those views to consider the best way forward.
	The noble Baroness may know that the committee's view is that:
	"In view of the limited nature of the power, and that fact that it will be subject to affirmative procedure, we consider that this level of delegation and control is appropriate".
	Therefore, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness that this is an example of the Government removing business that should properly be dealt with on the Floor of the House. Perhaps I may point out to her that we have consulted, as we should have done, with the appropriate and expert committee on the matter and it believes that Her Majesty's Government are adopting the correct procedure.
	I hope that in the light not only of my assurances but of those of the committee, she will feel able to withdraw her opposition to Clause 2 standing part of the Bill.

Lord Blaker: As I was the Member who first raised the issue of the Explanatory Notes with which we had been provided before Second Reading, I want to thank the noble Baroness for providing additional Explanatory Notes. They were extremely helpful and entirely met our needs, which is why I did not take up her further offer of a meeting.
	As regards the point raised by my noble friend, I am not entirely happy with the views of the Select Committee. I would have preferred not to have the provision relating to delegated legislation in the Bill in its current form. However, as the Select Committee has taken that view, it is difficult to argue too much against it. If it were going to give an affirmative answer to this part of the Bill, I would have preferred it to have limited that more narrowly. I would have preferred it to keep the answer expressly to the point, rather than making the wider comment that:
	"There is in principle no reason why there should not be delegation of the function of implementing an international agreement".
	I believe that that comment is too wide, especially when we are talking about such an important, sensitive and dangerous subject as arms control. I hope that the committee does not pursue its practice of expressing its recommendations in a sense that is wider than what is necessary to meet the problems before it.
	Furthermore, I would also like to support the necessity to make affirmative resolutions, which the committee did not do in its report. That is something of an oversight.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Given that the provision is subject to an affirmative resolution, we on these Benches support the Government. We believe that at a time when the international community and the international institutions are enforcing on Iraq the principle of inspection, it is important that we accept the principle of inspection of military installations in Britain. The CFE Treaty is of limited importance compared with some other arms control treaties, but it nevertheless enshrines the principle of inspection.
	I recall previous debates in this House when Members on the Conservative Benches raised the question whether Britain should be subject to the same level of inspection as some other states. We on these Benches would reinforce our view that international law must apply equally to all. On that basis, we support the Government and do not support the Conservative Front Bench.

Baroness Rawlings: I thank the noble Baroness for her answer. I support my noble friend Lord Blaker and his views. At the moment, I will not ask the view of the Committee but may return to the matter on Report.

Clause 2 agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Baroness Rawlings: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 20, at end insert ", which shall not be before all States Parties have complied fully with the provisions of the CFE Treaty and of the CFE Final Act"

Baroness Rawlings: The Minister has explained carefully that the Government will ratify the adapted CFE Treaty only "when the time is right", and I am grateful for that. It does seem, however, rather unusual to me that your Lordships' House should be considering legislation when there is no prospect of commencement until certain states parties have complied fully with the provisions of the treaty to which the Bill relates. I accept that the Government, along with the other NATO allies, are urging Russia to resolve its problems in Georgia and Moldova.
	I should be interested to know, however, why we are discussing this Bill now, before the Government are prepared to ratify the adapted treaty. Can the Minister explain to the Committee the current position in Russia with regard to these territories and whether there have been any developments since we discussed the subject last? The commitments contained in the CFE Final Act are of fundamental importance and I should be most grateful for clarification on this point. I beg to move.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The issue of when to ratify the treaty was raised at Second Reading. The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness would limit the Government's scope on when we should ratify the treaty by providing that it should not happen until such time as all states parties have complied fully with the provisions of the CFE Treaty and the CFE Final Act.
	The Government believe that the amendment takes a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Everyone in NATO agreed that swift fulfilment of the outstanding Istanbul commitments on Georgia and Moldova are necessary. The noble Baroness asked: why legislate now? It is because we want to be ready to ratify as soon as we are able. The fulfilment of those outstanding commitments will create the conditions for allies and other states parties to move forward on the ratification of the adapted treaty, which I believe is one that we in your Lordships' House all broadly support.
	Let me be clear. The noble Baroness is right in saying that the United Kingdom is not ready to ratify the adapted treaty. However, I repeat what the then Secretary of State said in Istanbul: that we hope to ratify the treaty early but that the time at which we do so will depend on the level of all parties' compliance within the agreed limits. That was reinforced by the NATO position agreed at Reykjavik on 14th and 15th May 2002. There, in the concluding statement, NATO agreed:
	"We can envisage ratification of the adapted CFE Treaty only in the context of full compliance by all states parties with agreed treaty limits and consistent with the commitments contained in the CFE Final Act".
	The noble Baroness asked me to bring the Committee up to date with the state of play on the Istanbul commitment. Perhaps I may do so briefly. Russia has complied with its treaty limits on equipment in the flank; that is, in Chechnya. It has removed the treaty-limited equipment, which we discussed at Second Reading, from Moldova and Georgia. Furthermore, Russia has disbanded its base at Vaziani, Georgia.
	However, although Russia has removed its TLE from the base at Abkhazia, legal transfer of the base to Georgia remains to be done, as does verification of the closure. Russia and Georgia have yet to agree a time-scale for the withdrawal of Russian stationed forces at the bases at Batumi and Akhalkalaki. Russian forces also remain in Transdniestria, Moldova, guarding the ammunition dump at Colbasna.
	I hope that that briefly brings Members of the Committee up to date with the various states in all the territories where I know the noble Baroness has had concern. Perhaps I may point out to her that the principle on which Her Majesty's Government are operating is one of host nation consent. The views of Georgia and Moldova will be of key importance in deciding whether the conditions for ratification are in place.
	The NATO statement was very carefully crafted. The context of this is enormously important, as I hope my remarks about Moldova and Georgia have made clear. We cannot envisage every eventuality at this stage. We cannot know how our allies and other co-signatories may wish to deal with the outstanding issues I have outlined to the Committee. However, the principles on which we are operating are clear. It would be unreasonable to put my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary into a straitjacket on this issue—a straitjacket in which I hope none of the other Foreign Secretaries with whom my right honourable friend is dealing would find themselves—and to try, in a sense, to second guess the carefully crafted and negotiated wording in the NATO statement.
	Were the amendment to be passed, it could potentially put the UK in the position of preventing the entry into force of the adapted CFE Treaty if we were not able to ratify at a point where negotiations led us to believe that ratification was the right position to take.
	I understand the noble Baroness's misgivings. While the wording she has brought forward looks similar to the NATO wording it is not the same. The NATO wording stresses the importance of the context of the negotiations and we believe that it is enormously important that my right honourable friend has the ability to negotiate on these issues in the same way as his other colleagues.

Baroness Rawlings: I thank the noble Baroness for that detailed answer and congratulate her on her mastery of those very difficult names. We do not want to put the Foreign Secretary into a straitjacket or to delay ratification. However, we are still worried about the situation in Moldova and Georgia and will come back to this issue on Report. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 agreed to.
	Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Convention on the Future of Europe

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: rose to move, That this House takes note of the Convention on the Future of Europe.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I begin by emphasising how pleased I am that we are having this debate today. The 30th report of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Union on The Convention on the Future of Europe provides a comprehensive, yet succinct, introduction to the work of the convention. Today's debate will provide a timely update to that report as we examine the wide range of issues that the convention has considered over the past 10 months. The number of noble Lords who are to speak today is clear evidence of your Lordships' enduring interest in all things European. I very much welcome this Parliament's commitment to follow closely the discussions in the convention.
	The Secretary of State for Wales is the Government's representative on the Future of Europe Convention. I have the honour of being the Government's alternate representative on the convention. I am in very good company because the House has been well represented by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, who participated in the complementary competencies and simplification group, and by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, who sits on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench today. It is in my capacity as alternate representative rather than as a Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department that I address the House today.
	The architecture of the European Union was originally designed, more than half a century ago, for the six founding members of the European Coal and Steel Community. With successive rounds of enlargement that structure is creaking, despite various efforts to cover the cracks. The next wave of enlargement will see 10 new members join the Union on 1st May 2004. We hope that others will follow before the decade is out. The enlargement will stretch the Union's institutional structure further still. Without reform, it could push the Union to breaking point.
	Heads of state and government explicitly recognised this situation a little more than a year ago, in December 2001, at the Laeken European Council. They also acknowledged the growing sense of disengagement and disillusionment among citizens—not only in the United Kingdom but across all member states. This was evident in the falling levels of participation in elections for the European Parliament and manifested itself in disappointing results in referendums on the Union in a number of member states.
	It was therefore recognised that another intergovernmental conference would be needed. To prepare the way, leaders agreed to establish a convention to provide for dialogue and consultation with a wider group of interlocutors than ever before. The convention's task would be to design a new political architecture for the future of the Union.
	The convention began its work in February last year. It is a unique creature. For the first time ever, it offers a forum within which people from diverse backgrounds can debate options and proposals for making the Union more effective and more efficient. There is also a civic forum, which gives civil society an opportunity to present ideas to the convention.
	The convention started with a listening phase, followed swiftly by more detailed consideration of issues in 11 working groups, all of which have reported save for the final group on social issues, which is due to report back to the plenary in early February.
	With the new year comes a shift of emphasis in the convention. Discussions are set to focus on institutional issues. Considerable work will need to be done if meat is to be put on the bones of the skeleton draft constitutional treaty that the convention's chairman, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, presented to members at the plenary session in October 2002.
	It is increasingly clear that a key result of the convention will be the drafting of a new constitutional treaty for the European Union. This will be a major achievement. The Government have made clear their position on the idea of a constitution for Europe. For anyone who has not yet done so, I thoroughly recommend that they read my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary's illuminating article in the Economist in October last year and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's speech in Cardiff at the end of November.
	The Government support the idea of a constitution for the European Union. A constitution would help all of us to understand better what the European Union does and how it does it. It would result in a more effectively organised Union that would be better able to deliver practical benefits to Europe's citizens. It would also help to dispel some of the mystery that surrounds Brussels and allow all of us to grasp better the opportunities and practical benefits that the Union can offer. That in turn would help to strengthen the Union and make it more responsive to people's needs.
	But we do not support a constitution at any price. Whatever text is agreed must improve on the status quo. For us, that means a text that is clear and concise; a text that sets out what the EU is, what it does, and who does it. That means clarity on where power and responsibility lie. We must define more clearly those areas where the Union has exclusive power; we must know where powers are shared between the EU and member states; and we must understand when national policies hold sway.
	That does not mean that we need a fixed list of responsibilities, which some people refer to as a "catalogue of competencies". That would limit the flexibility that has served the Union so well in responding to the varying demands of its members and adapting to global changes. Rather, we believe that clarity can be achieved by a simple statement of principle that establishes clear lines between what the Union does and where member states' responsibilities lie.
	The draft constitutional treaty that Valery Giscard d'Estaing presented to the convention in October provides a good basis for achieving our aims for a more succinct and easier to understand text. There are many positive things about the skeleton. For example, it is based on an assumption of the EU as a union of sovereign states. This reflects the status quo. It does not lead us down the route of a federal superstate. It incorporates the idea—which we fully endorse—of having a full-time, elected president (or chair) of the European Council to guide that institution in its strategic overview and implementation of the Union's activities. And it includes the proposal—which we have strongly supported—for the creation of a new mechanism to enable national parliamentarians to monitor and enforce compliance with the principle of subsidiarity.
	But Valery Giscard d'Estaing's text is not yet ideal. There are things in it we do not like. As the discussions on an EU constitution progress over the coming weeks and months, we shall be working hard—engaging other members of the convention—to ensure that the final draft meets our ideas for what a constitution of the EU should be. That means a text that is clear, that is concise, and that clarifies what the EU is, what it does, and how it does it.
	This Government's approach to the convention has not been a traditional one. In some ways this has caused surprise. We have not hung back, warily following a path that we have let others carve. We have been fully engaged and constructive, talking to other representatives at the convention and building alliances with like-minded individuals and member states. We have been prepared to listen and have encouraged others to think imaginatively when sketching out a future design for the Union. We have rather taken aback many of our interlocutors with this novel British approach. But I believe that we are having an impact and making progress across the whole range of issues discussed at the convention.
	Take the charter of fundamental rights, for example. This is an area of interest for many of your Lordships, and I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about where we stand. I was the United Kingdom's representative on the working group that looked at the charter. I must confess that it was not the easiest task I have ever undertaken. But we have made progress.
	There was no desire within the group to open up the text of the substantive charter articles themselves to renegotiation. I am glad about that, for it would have been to open Pandora's Box. Our proposal—which I am glad to say was taken up by the group—was that we should focus instead on the charter's general provisions: the so-called horizontal articles.
	The idea was that we could strengthen the rules for interpreting the charter so as to overcome the lack of legal clarity and security which some of us saw in the broad drafting of the substantive articles themselves. I am very pleased to be able to report that, in the end, we achieved consensus within the group on a series of amendments to the charter's horizontal articles to help make the charter as a whole more suitable for legal status. We also agreed—this is an important point—that the commentary, the detailed legal clarifications of each and every individual article, should be further supplemented and published with the charter to ensure that lawyers and all of us better understand what is intended by the drafters.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, will the Minister give way? I am grateful for her explanation, but can she explain whether what she has said corresponds with what the former Minister, Mr Vaz, said; namely, that the charter was no more significant than the Beano—with the strong implication that it had no legally binding consequences? Is what the noble Baroness said consistent with that?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is absolutely consistent. The charter remains what it is. At the moment it is a political document and no more. The noble Lord will know that even the Beano can be referred to in any court in England and Wales or elsewhere if it proves helpful to the judicial mind in determining a particular issue.
	I do not claim that the working group recommendations answer every question and concern about the charter. No final decisions have been taken. That will be for the Prime Minister at the intergovernmental conference that will follow the conclusion of the convention. Departments are currently considering to what extent the changes so far proposed would resolve the legal and practical problems that we envisaged with full incorporation of the charter. I would not wish to pre-empt that process.
	But we achieved major steps forward. They have come about as a result of explaining, listening, proposing and negotiating. That is the way to make progress and to have influence. Both my noble friend Lord Tomlinson and the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, are evidence of that.
	The importance of being actively engaged in the convention has also been demonstrated by the UK parliamentary representative, Ms Gisela Stuart. Her chairmanship of the working group on the role of national parliaments generated overwhelming support for the need for national parliaments to play a bigger role in the Union. That means national parliaments getting more involved in EU decision-making processes, and at an earlier stage. It means improving national scrutiny procedures in all national parliaments, so that governments can be held to account better for the decisions they take in Brussels. And it means developing the links and networks that exist between national and European parliamentarians.
	We pushed the need for subsidiarity to be monitored at a political level. We advocated that the right political level was that of national parliamentarians. I believe that we made considerable progress in the working group where UK interests were represented by my right honourable friend Peter Hain. We would have preferred the creation of an ad hoc body to monitor compliance with subsidiarity. In the end, the consensus in the working group settled on a lighter early warning mechanism. The important achievement for us, in the working group, was getting a broad consensus in support of the principle that national parliamentarians should review EU proposals and make an ex ante political judgment on whether action was being taken at the right level.
	While improving enforcement of the subsidiarity principle may not be the principal topic of conversation in many homes and pubs across Britain, it is clear that crime and immigration are at the top of people's agendas. I sat on the convention working group that looked at justice and home affairs. I believe that, here again, we have secured agreement to a final report that meets many of our own ideas.
	Asylum and immigration are, by definition, international. To deal with these issues effectively, we have to work and co-operate with others. That is why we have advocated a common EU asylum and immigration policy. Unfortunately, we have not made as much progress at the EU level as we would have liked. That is in part due to the decision-making process that prevails. So it is logical that we have supported a move away from unanimity in these areas. The introduction of qualified majority voting for asylum and immigration matters will enable us to make the decisions that we need to make, to ensure a fully operational and functional common EU asylum and immigration policy. That will benefit Britain, and it will benefit the British people.
	Hand-in-hand with a more effective common asylum and immigration policy is the need for stronger external borders for the Union. This is inextricably linked with greater co-operation between member state police forces and judicial systems. The trafficking of humans is international. To tackle it effectively we must confront it at a European level. The same is true for drugs. But this does not mean the creation of a single legal system. I do not believe that that would be the most effective way forward. Rather, we want to see mutual recognition of each other's systems. I am happy to report that the working group's report recommends just that—mutual recognition forming the basis of co-operation across the Union in these areas.
	I have mentioned that we support moves away from unanimity in the areas of asylum and illegal immigration. But a wholesale shift towards qualified majority voting on all issues is not the way forward. We have made very clear our view that taxation and social security, for example, must remain matters for national governments and parliaments. So, too, must foreign and defence policy. We are pleased that the external actions working group considered practical ways to improve the effectiveness of CFSP and to make the EU's external actions more coherent. This included looking at ways to improve coherence between the Commission and the Council, and at how to improve management of the EU's development programmes, with a greater focus on poverty reduction. There was also consideration of how to bolster the role of the High Representative on CFSP and to improve financing for this policy area. For the most part, the discussions went in our direction, and we were able to make clear that any move towards a single legal personality for the EU would have to respect the intergovernmental nature of CFSP.
	This is a crucial time for the future of European security and defence policy. Berlin Plus is in place, and the EU is on the verge of taking on its first military operations. The EU should not be in the business of setting out a territorial defence guarantee. We need to focus our energies and resources on the ESDP challenges we face, not duplicate what NATO offers partners who wish to be part of a collective defence alliance.
	As for social policy, the working group has only just begun its work. Peter Hain is playing an active role as a member of that group. We believe strongly that the focus should be on social exclusion and the creation of the jobs that are the best weapon against such exclusion. That agenda must be preferable to the alternative, which is more regulation. That would stifle the European economy and run counter to the Lisbon economic reform agenda, of which we have been such staunch advocates.
	As I noted at the beginning, the convention is now moving on to examine institutional questions. I am conscious of having taken some time to set out the Government's position on many of the issues being discussed at the convention. So, to allow your Lordships to comment on and debate the issue before us, I shall keep my comments on institutional reform brief.
	Some have mischievously suggested that this Government is looking to enhance the role of the Council to the detriment of other EU institutions. That is absolutely untrue. It is the balance of power and responsibilities between the three EU institutions—the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament—which makes the Union work. The answer to making Europe more effective and efficient is not to strengthen one side of the triangle. That would weaken the institutional base of the Union. The only viable option must be to improve the functioning of all three institutions. That is why we are considering ways to strengthen the Commission's powers of initiative and enforcement. And that is why we are looking at how to make the European Parliament more effective and better able to hold the Commission to account.
	This Government firmly believe that Britain's place is in the heart of a strong Europe. The European Union has a poor reputation in some quarters for being slow to react, or not being sufficiently open, transparent, effective or efficient. The need to reform the Union is no secret, but it is best reformed from within, from a position of strength. That is why it is vital that Britain be a committed member of the Union, actively engaged in the debate on the Union's future.
	The convention offers us a timely opportunity to look at the kind of Union we want. It provides a forum for discussing openly how we can achieve the reforms we deem necessary. The convention has made more progress than most sceptics thought possible. The discussions are, for the most part, along the lines that we wish to see develop. We have not won support for all our ideas. No-one has. That is the nature of debate. But where our ideas have not taken root, we are working hard to persuade others with convincing and constructive arguments.
	I look forward to hearing what noble Lords have to say today in what I am sure will be a frank, candid exchange of views. I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House takes note of the Convention on the Future of Europe.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I commend to the House the Select Committee's report on the convention. However, with your Lordships' indulgence, I shall speak a little more broadly than that. I speak today in my capacity as chairman of the Select Committee on the European Union and as successor to my most able predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. The committee had earlier indicated that it wanted to have the opportunity to hear the Government's views on these important issues. The committee and I are grateful to the Government for meeting that request with today's debate.
	As chairman of the committee I feel bound to be careful in what I say because, for the most part, but not exclusively, I shall be speaking on behalf of it. We have just heard an impressive opening speech from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, speaking in her capacity as the Government's alternate representative on the convention, a function that she is discharging with the distinction with which we always associate her. At the close of my remarks, I wish to react briefly to what she said. I trust your Lordships and, in particular, members of the committee will allow me that latitude.
	I hope that this will not be the last occasion we have to debate these issues. The Select Committee's agreed view is that there should be further debates as the work of the convention continues all the way to the delivery of the final document to the June Council at Thessaloniki and after that as the governments prepare for the 2004 inter-governmental conference.
	If the convention had turned out to be just the harmless talking shop that many had predicted at its launch, I doubt we would now be so anxious to discuss its output at regular intervals. But, since getting down to work last February, it has demonstrated that it really can deliver. Monsieur Giscard d'Estaing's much derided comparison of the convention's task with that of the Philadelphia Convention 1787 is beginning to seem a rather less fanciful exaggeration than it did a year ago.
	Given the authority, expertise and political weight of the members who are hammering out the recommendations for reform, most would now agree that it will be difficult for European leaders to stray far from them when agreeing the treaty. That is why it is right that we, as a parliamentary chamber, should take the work of the convention as seriously as we do.
	Your Lordships' Select Committee has already been monitoring the work of the convention. We have heard evidence twice from the UK parliamentary representatives on the convention: Gisela Stuart and David Heathcoat-Amory from another place, and the noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord MacLennan of Rogart, whom I am pleased to see in their places today. They have been doing splendid work in the convention, and we look forward to their contributions to this debate. The work of the convention was also the subject of questions that we put to Peter Hain when, as Minister for Europe, he gave evidence to us last July following the Seville European Council.
	Before the Summer Recess, the Select Committee produced a short report for information, which is before your Lordships today. Of course, quite a lot of water has passed under the bridge since we were taking evidence and putting together that report. Its aim was modest: to spark interest in the work of the convention and to encourage broader and more substantive debate in this House on this milestone in the development of the European Union. It made only a limited number of recommendations, which related primarily to our work here in Westminster. They were: first, that this debate should take place—and it is; secondly, that the convention website should be enhanced—it has been; thirdly, that there should be further debate once the convention has completed its work—I have reason to hope there will be; fourthly, that the national parliamentarians on the convention should operate cohesively—which they appear to be doing; and, fifthly, that Members of this House should participate in the joint Standing Committee—which your Lordships have been doing to good effect. That these few recommendations are being or have been acted on is a cause for some satisfaction. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who chaired the inquiry. As his successor, may I be as fortunate.
	Now, of course, our work goes on. The reports from each of the convention's working groups will be the subject of reports from our committee to this House in the coming weeks. Some are being considered by the sub-committees. Some, such as those on subsidiarity and on the role of national parliaments, will be considered by the Select Committee itself.
	There is one further area in which our committee has been active in matters relating to the convention. We have recently taken a hard look at parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation and we published a report just before the Christmas Recess. Some of its proposals are addressed to the Select Committee itself, some to the House, some to the Government and some to the convention, but all are designed to strengthen and enhance the role of national parliaments in scrutinising EU legislation. The role of national parliaments has emerged as a key issue at the convention. I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in paying tribute to Gisela Stuart, who, by all accounts, has chaired Working Group 4 with consummate skill.
	As a House of Parliament, we are now, as a result of the convention's work in this area, on the edge of a step change in our role in the dynamics of the European Union. That is an exciting and very challenging prospect. Of course, we can never hope—nor, indeed, should we ever expect—to be co-legislators with the European Parliament, but we have an increasingly significant role to play and one that can help address the alarming gulf of incomprehension, again referred to by the noble Baroness in her opening remarks, which still separates the citizen of the Union from the institutions and individuals who govern. To play that role is not merely a means to reassert the authority of Parliament—which is important enough—it is a fundamental constitutional and democratic obligation, which we should do our utmost to meet. Without blowing our trumpet too loudly, I have to say that I am hopeful that we will not be found wanting, not least because the range and depth of expertise reflected in the membership of your Lordships' House adds hugely to Parliament's capacity to carry out an effective job of scrutiny.
	Our just-published report on scrutiny covered a number of matters not relevant to this debate, relating to how we as a House go about our work. We will have a separate debate on that report in due course. However, among the report's 68 recommendations, four important conclusions are relevant to today's debate, since they are addressed to the convention. Allow me to mention them, because, although all but one of the working groups has now reported to the plenary, there is still time and opportunity for some fine tuning.
	First, greater openness in the Council, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, referred, will facilitate faster scrutiny by national parliaments. We have high hopes that that will be the case, in light of the convention's strong recommendation that the Council should act in public when it is exercising its legislative functions. I am glad that our representatives have pushed hard on that in the convention. Abolishing the six-monthly presidencies could also help by avoiding the end-of-term rush to decisions, provided that other artificial deadlines are not built in. Working Group 9's proposals on the simplification of instruments and procedures would also simplify scrutiny.
	Secondly, the convention should consider a revision of the co-decision procedure to allow greater opportunity for national parliamentary scrutiny. When conciliation is triggered, the relevant documents from the Commission, the Parliament and the Council should be made public and submitted to national parliaments, which should have four weeks to consider them before the conciliation committee can meet.
	Thirdly, the convention should consider whether the European Parliament's procedures could be strengthened in three ways: by setting up an equivalent of our committees that scrutinise, or will scrutinise, statutory instruments; by reinforcing the work of their existing committees in scrutinising comitology legislation; and by considering a procedure analogous to our negative and affirmative resolution procedure.
	Fourthly and finally, scrutiny of the impact of legislation would be greatly enhanced in our view if the European Parliament was obliged to produce a cost analysis of the effect of its own proposed amendments to EU law. We urge that this be introduced by treaty amendment.
	In conclusion, I shall take a moment to pose a few questions arising out of the opening speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to which perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, will be able to respond when she winds up. They relate not so much to what she said, but to some of the things that she did not say. There were a few dogs, so to speak, that did not bark in the night. I shall draw attention to one or two of them.
	With respect to Britain's efforts to get its partners in the working group on social affairs to adopt a new agenda on social policy based on measures to promote worker employability, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that a proper balance can be ensured between full employment measures and high standards of worker protection?
	Secondly, with reference to the proposal to have the European Parliament elect the Commission president, with the Council confirming that election, the Prime Minister said in his Cardiff speech:
	"We must avoid at all costs turning the election of its president into a partisan wrangle or allowing the Commission to become a prisoner of the parliamentary majority".
	In light of that, would Her Majesty's Government support Signor Prodi's proposal that the president be elected by a two-thirds majority and on a secret ballot?
	Thirdly, what position are the Government taking on the principle of voluntary withdrawal from the Union—the so-called exit clause? Do they see the right to withdraw as providing members with the ability to exercise some gentle—or maybe not so gentle—blackmail? Do they agree with those who propose that failure to ratify the treaty should entail withdrawal from the Union?
	Fourthly, do Her Majesty's Government believe that an Article 5-type solidarity clause would undermine EU relations with NATO?
	Fifthly, with regard to Working Group 9's report on simplification of instruments and procedures, are Her Majesty's Government among those who would prefer to keep common strategies, joint actions and common positions in the foreign affairs field?
	Finally, are Her Majesty's Government among those who favour an enhanced role for the Commission in defining the broad economic policy guidelines and in monitoring the growth and stability pact?
	I apologise for the number of questions that I have posed, but they may be referred to by other noble Lords during the debate. I very much look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and I commend the Select Committee's report to your Lordships.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we all owe very warm thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and to the European Union Committee for the report, which has triggered this important debate this afternoon, and for all the other work that the committee undertakes, including the prospect of some other very important reports to come. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, mentioned the report issued just before Christmas on the review of scrutiny proposals to give Parliament more powerful scrutiny of decisions made by European Union institutions. I hope we debate that very soon, because it is a very relevant part of the overall picture. The noble Lord is quite right about that.
	While I give warm thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for her very full and detailed coverage of what is going on in the convention, as she sees it, my thanks are marginally cooler towards the Government as a whole in relation to the opportunities that we have had and are having for looking at the crucial and fundamental decisions about our nation and our national interest that are daily being moulded and hardened by the work of the convention. I for one never had any doubts that the convention would assume this forward role. I know the convention report rightly reminds us that the decisions or proposals of the working groups, which are now all coming in, are not binding, but we all know from bitter experience that in this arena the non-binding has a habit of suddenly becoming binding, recommendations have a habit of becoming rules and draft proposals cease to be drafts and become unstoppable hurricanes of changes and we are then told that it is too late to alter anything.
	Already six months have passed since the report of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on the convention was published. We are now in January. Even in those six months, legions of concessions appear to have been made by representatives of Her Majesty's Government on issues that have become more or less settled—I believe they are much more settled than people appreciate—without any full and adequate debate here, except in the standing committee. I concede that that committee has been useful, but it is not an adequate substitute for full debate, considering the enormous importance of the issues. That is not a good sign, and is certainly not a matter for thanks and congratulations.
	In her speech, the noble Baroness asked for candid and frank comments. Perhaps I may begin by stating the fact, which, again, does not seem to have been appreciated by large parts of the media, let alone by the parliamentary institution here, that coming towards the British Government at the speed of an express train—and, indeed, towards all of us—is a dilemma that puts even the euro currency issue in the shade; namely, whether to submit to a full-blown, written, European constitution, binding on all EU members—to quote the Prime Minister, "a proper constitution for Europe".
	In what I thought was rather a confused speech at Cardiff—one that I read most carefully but could not, quite frankly, understand fully—the Prime Minister referred to this as being a simple choice. I do not believe that it is: it is an immensely complicated and very important choice, and we would like ample time to address it. However, there is now very little time left. The months have gone by and, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, reminded us, the working group has nearly completed its work.
	Although I am not sure that this was the original intention, the convention, under Valery Giscard D'Estaing, has turned itself into a constitutional conference and final drafts are now beginning to circulate. These will be finalised by late spring, and a document will be ready for submission to the Council of Ministers. The plan is for everything to be agreed and settled before the end of the year. In fact, I have even heard talk that the intergovernmental conference of 2004 should be brought forward so that it can all be quickly signed and sealed.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, rightly emphasised, such matters cannot be left to occasional debate. The contents of the new constitution in draft are truly revolutionary. According to the working group, defence and foreign policy are to be fully embraced in a single, expanded Union structure, with more QMV—that is, non-accountable decision-making—substantially extended in the CFSP area. Indeed, in contrast to what the noble Baroness said, there are proposals in that working group for QMV to be extended in CFSP issues that are in flat defiance of Article 23 of the Maastricht Treaty, which made a promise—one which, I suppose, we should not have believed—that QMV would not be extended in military or foreign policy areas.
	As the noble Baroness conceded, QMV is to be extended in justice and home affairs issues, especially immigration policy. A mass of new social or positive rights are to be incorporated in the constitutional document. The Union is to have a legal personality that gives it full international status, and, in the view of many experts, that will almost certainly lead to the EU seeking a seat on the UN Security Council—which, presumably, would mean the end of the British, and French, tenure on that body.
	Confronted with that momentum, which I concede has been considerable, the British authorities have had three choices. The first was just to go along with it all and hope that no one would notice what had been traded away. The second choice was to accept the new constitution, and its enabling treaty, as "inevitable" and try to amend and improve bits of it here and there, and the third was to fight the whole prospect tooth and nail.
	Without saying so explicitly—indeed, I do not believe that I heard the noble Baroness say this—the Government appear to have chosen the second route of the three. They have decided that the pass is already sold, and that the best that can be hoped for is a watered-down version. Obviously, the noble Baroness described the latter in nicer terms, but that is what the aim appears to be. There is a draft British text prepared by the eminent Cambridge academic, Professor Alan Dashwood, which has been circulated in the convention as "the British text" by Mr Peter Hain, who is Secretary of State for Wales. He is our man at the conference, or the Government's man, although some would say that his track record of diplomatic finesse has not been too dazzling in other fields. However, there he is, and, for better or worse, he is putting forward the British draft constitution.
	What is the purpose of the British draft? The argument, to which the noble Baroness returned today, appears to be that if we fight hard enough we shall preserve national sovereignties in the areas of foreign policy and defence, entrench the position of nation states within the Union, and prevent still more power drifting to Brussels—halting the so-called "competence creep" that worries many of your Lordships. As I understand it, that is the government line. As the implications trickle into the public debate, I have no doubt that we shall be told that it is a very strong line, and that any opposition to it is short-sighted, silly, anti-European, and so on. Clearly, we are used to those sweeping dismissals. It will be asserted that Britain is "winning" and that our national interests are being preserved, not eroded, by the new constitution and the treaty that will embody it.
	This "thus far and no further" line might be sustainable if it were true. In reality, the suggestions for compromise about which the noble Baroness talked today have already been turned down flat in the proposals of the working group. We have the proposals—indeed, I sat up all night reading every word of the decisions and recommendations of the working group—and I am afraid that defence, security, and foreign affairs are already doomed, if that is the right word, to be fully embraced in a single Union structure, as are a slew of justice and home affairs issues.
	I listened with great respect to the noble Baroness's assessment of the situation based on considerable experience, but I have to say that the new charter of fundamental rights will indeed be fully embedded in the constitution. That is what the working group's proposal says, but that is not quite what I understood the noble Baroness to say—though she was a member of the group. It states that,
	"all members of the Group either support strongly an incorporation of the Charter in a form which would make the Charter legally binding and give it constitutional status or would not rule out giving favourable consideration to such incorporation".
	That is difficult to reconcile with the Beano theory, although the noble Baroness did a heroic job in trying to put the two in the same bracket. I do not believe that it will wash, or work. The Government will need to do much more explaining before we accept the arguments that we have so far heard. The legal personality issue also appears to have been settled, so that all the British worries about losing our seat at the UN Security Council have clearly been swept aside.
	Then there is the smokescreen of arguments about power between the EU institutions, which is a fascinating debate: should the Commission have more control over foreign policy, or, alternatively, should it be the Council of Ministers or its Secretariat? How many new powers will be assigned to the European Parliament? Would that solve the democratic deficit? For those of us looking out from our national parliaments, all that looks a little like rearranging the chairs. Of course, the real issue is about power and who holds it. Although there is a lot of talk about re-involving national parliaments in EU decisions, not just in the convention but in previous treaties, and although some of the ideas put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, would achieve that aim, if one looks closely at the proposals in the new constitution one sees that very few of them will do anything other than divert more power to the central institutions of the EU and weaken the ties with the democratic political systems of the member states.
	The subsidiarity "concession" from the group very ably chaired by Gisela Stuart MP has been trumpeted as a great concession to national parliaments. As the detail shows, however, the concession is a mouse. All it allows is that, if a substantial number of national parliaments think that the Commission is intruding on national grounds, they can send it back and leave the Commission free to decide whether to push ahead as before, to amend it grudgingly, or whatever. So the ball is simply tossed back into the Commission's court; there is no real transfer of real power.
	The scrutiny proposals which we are developing here and which the European Union Committee has already put into its report, which we shall debate, will help greatly, but they will not reverse that. The reality is that putting the charter at the centre of the proposed constitution does mean downgrading democratic political debate and handing over more power, not only to EU institutions, but to the courts that underpin a new constitutional order and the new European kritarchy—which is rule by judges and courts—and their decisions over larger parts of people's lives. If that is the way we are going, we should be able to choose and know that that is what is intended.
	Communitising defence and foreign policy means more stultifying central bureaucracy at the very moment in history when more flexibility and national manoeuvrability are essential.
	As for writing it all down in a new "simplified" constitutional treaty, not only does that go flatly against the British "unwritten" tradition—perhaps that does not matter anymore; that can be brushed aside—it actually defies what Sidney Low, in that wonderful book The Governance of England, called,
	"the very essence of the English system of government"—
	namely, that it is,
	"in a constant state of development".
	The new, simplified constitution is trying to put an almost pre-Copernican fixity in place of the evolution on which our constitutional arrangements have always depended.
	Finally, and over and above even that, the whole project for a new European constitution is full of dangers which we should recognise and not brush aside for Europe itself. First, it is odd, I think, that there is an attempt to draft a new constitution just when 10 new members, and very independent members too, are about to join; it seems to be slightly a matter of the cart before the horse. However, it is also a deadly assault on the diversity, vitality and independence that gives Europe its strength and feeling of common cause in the network age. I think that the new applicant states are just beginning to realise, if they have not already done so, that this danger is coming.
	The Prime Minister calls for Europe to become "a superpower", and he was at it again the other day in Cardiff. I think that we on this side ask when will he understand that strong nations are essential to human progress? When will he and the Government grasp that strong and independent nations are essential not only to the protection and care of ordinary people and the maintenance of law and order, but to the functioning and growth of prosperity and markets? Why does he believe that the world will be a safer place with two ambitious super-blocs projecting their "rightful" place on the world stage and inevitably rivalling each other? That is not my belief at all. Why does the Prime Minister believe that the rise of Europe as a military force will bring it closer to the people? How is that going to help us in our defences against globally organised terrorism?
	It may be that, as the excellent report suggests, the aim of the convention is to restore public confidence in the European Union. In reality, however, the convention proposals—which are now rapidly becoming not proposals but hard decisions—amount in the deepest and truest sense to an anti-European endeavour. I am deeply convinced of that. I think that genuinely good Europeans should not be compromising with this, but challenging the flawed thinking underlying large parts of the proposals. At the very least, the British public should be guaranteed a referendum on the great new constitutional treaty which now looms—that is, if anyone has bothered to inform them about what is truly involved, and how both their own and Europe's wider interests are at this very moment being submissively and incompetently traded away.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I must admit at the beginning, and I am sure that your Lordships will understand, that in speaking from these Benches in this debate on the future of Europe, I feel a poignant sense of loss. We are bereft by the death of Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Just before Christmas, when he was plainly not well, Roy questioned me about the progress of the convention. He spoke with spirited insight and amused personal characterisations. Once again, however, I heard in his voice that determined magnanimity which for over four decades has been the best of Britain's contribution to the building of the European Union.
	Perhaps in retrospect Roy Jenkins' constancy might seem to some inevitable, but, in truth, the choices which his European commitments summoned up were made with courage and small regard for personal political advancement. Of his formative work as President of the European Commission I shall later have more to say which is directly relevant to the decisions of the convention which lie ahead. In sum, however, Roy Jenkins' stance in Parliament and in the country made possible the broad-based acceptance of what the Prime Minister has acknowledged—that Britain's place should lie at the heart of Europe.
	It has been for me a privilege to represent this House and this Parliament as an alternate member of the convention, and I thank noble Lords for the assistance and understanding with which they have provided me in that task. The convention works formally and informally through the interaction of its individual members, but not as a constituent assembly representative of the groups of which it is composed. There, I believe, lies its strength. It is this which has fostered the palpable sense of individual obligation to contribute to a successful outcome.
	It is worth calling to mind the historical context in which the convention was set up. By a progression which was far from pre-ordained, from the Single European Act through the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice, the member countries have constructed a Union with large proclaimed ambitions and increasingly diverse and complex constitutional means of achieving them. The Union has embraced provisions on citizenship, on the creation of an area of justice, freedom and security, and to develop a common security and defence policy. To the grandeur of these policy aims has been added, at Copenhagen, the welcome prospective physical enlargement of the Union to embrace most of the countries of the continent of Europe. The decision of the European Council at Laeken to have recourse to a convention, including representatives from candidate countries, was therefore a wise recognition of the urgent need for European constitutional reform.
	Why a convention? I think that the limited achievements of the Nice Council and the positive precedent of the Convention on the Charter of Rights, ably served by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, pointed to the possibilities inherent in widening the debate beyond the confines of the Council. It provided the opportunity for a deliberative process, openly conducted, whereunder all the decision-making arrangements of the Union could be considered together. Changes required by enlargement could be considered. Account could be taken of the dissatisfaction of many of Europe's citizens with the opacity and unresponsiveness of many of its processes. Judgments could be openly arrived at as to how best to advance the efficiency, effectiveness and democratic accountability of the workings of the Union. After nine months of working—and for myself and most members of the convention it has been a near full-time commitment—it is possible to take stock.
	As has been indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, reports have been delivered from 10 working groups which have been debated and broadly approved by plenary sessions. Among the remarkable record of consensus achieved it can be noted that the convention is likely to draft a constitution for the Union, the skeleton of which is in place. A single legal personality will be ascribed to the Union, with provisions for securing for the Union a unified voice in external representation. The Charter of Rights will be embodied in the constitution, albeit subject to proper indications clarifying which matters will be justiciable and which declaratory of principles to be taken into account in interpretation. Provision is likely to be made to enable the Union to subscribe to the European Convention on Human Rights. Proposals have been made radically to simplify and reduce in number the instruments and procedures by which the Union legislates. My colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, has effectively deployed his experience in the process of reforming the Union's budgetary procedure. As the Group on Simplification, to which I belong, put it:
	"citizens must be able to understand the system so that they can identify its problems, criticise it and ultimately control it".
	A common general legal framework for provisions relating to justice, home affairs and internal security is likely to be proposed, with the proper distinction drawn between legislative and operational tasks, to untangle the maze of decision-making in this sphere which has baffled effective operation to date.
	From the consideration of the Union's competences, and of what are likely to be known in future as its capacity to introduce "supporting measures", it is clear that enlarging the scope of the Union's powers is not backed by the convention—something which I think is particularly important to draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. There is no desire to enlarge the competences of the European Union manifested in our deliberations. The whole thrust of the convention has been to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of the Union's exercise of its existing powers. That has led to sensible recommendations for early warning of legislative initiatives to give national parliaments the opportunity to challenge proposals against the requirements of subsidiarity and proportionality. The work of national parliaments in scrutinising their own governments and through them the work of the Council will be constitutionally fortified and the decision-making of the Council sitting in legislative capacity will almost certainly be made more fully open. So far, so good. But the convention has reached a turning point, to which the noble Baroness alluded. In the months left to it, it must flesh out the draft constitution.
	The convention has been successfully led to this point by its president, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, ably assisted by the Secretary General, Sir John Kerr. Habits of agreement have been acquired. Now these habits must be applied to even more testing issues. What is to be the future of the four principal institutions of the Union? The convention must now consider what to recommend to the Council and to the peoples of Europe who in many cases will finally decide in national referenda. Already the Benelux countries have tabled a well considered paper. The Foreign Ministers of France and Germany, M. de Villepin and Joschka Fischer, both members of the convention, are expected shortly to follow suit. For Britain the Prime Minister has set out in his important Cardiff speech a most welcome commitment to ensuring a constructive outcome to the process.
	The convention did not start with a blank sheet. In many respects the Union has been a success. Although there is room for consolidation, simplification and reform of the institutions, there is no case for jettisoning the acquis communautaire. Today Europe is enjoying internal peace and prosperity. To that achievement the Union may be able to add a safeguarded environment, of particular importance following enlargement.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? When he says that there is no case for jettisoning the acquis communautaire, can he think of any parliament, anywhere, at any time, that has taken the attitude that what is legislated for can never be repealed? Is all European legislation to be with us in perpetuity?

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, to jettison the acquis communautaire would be the equivalent of seeking by Act of this Parliament to dispose of the entire statute book. It would be a patent nonsense.
	Today the new tasks which lie close to the heart of the reason why states exist include provision for the internal and external security of the Union. The Union also aspires to augment its influence on the world stage, to tackle poverty, disease, threats of war and the denial of human rights. In these tasks it would bring to bear its own commitments to democracy and the rule of law. In the delivery of these ends it has been said that the Union should not become a superstate but rather a superpower. Such attempted distinctions cannot disguise the fact that the Union is already a polity. It is more than an alliance, more than the concert of Europe periodically meeting to resolve its members' differences. The Union is a living, constitutional polity, with executive, legislative and judicial arms. It is a polity unlike a state only in the limitation of its powers.
	For the convention then, its task is a practical one: to propose institutional reforms which subserve the effective advancement of the agreed purposes of the Union. The task is practical but it is sometimes unwisely presented as ideological and even adversarial. The convention is not, however, engaged in a zero-sum game in which the strengthening of one institution must be achieved at the expense of the loss of authority by another. Each of the Union's institutions brings to the decision-making process characteristics and capabilities which are essential to the success of the whole. Leaving aside the special role of the European Court of Justice in ensuring conformity with Union law, the trinity of Union institutions, the Council, the Commission and the Parliament, exemplify the sixth century theological concept of the Holy Trinity characterised by the Greek term perichoresis. This allowed the individuality of the three persons to be maintained while insisting that each person shares in the life of the other two. To stray into theology, however, is to risk my reputation for practicality.
	To put the issue bluntly, the Council must remain, particularly in the sphere of external affairs, the body which brings credibility to the Union's actions by the commitment of the member states individually and collectively, including their commitment of the necessary resources. Its strategic role in agreeing the purposes and direction of the Union is paramount.
	The Commission is the Union's principal executive with the twin role of acting as the agent to implement the Union's policies and to propose policies which may fulfil the Union's aims. It is self-deluding to see these roles, particularly the latter, as subservient, technocratic functions. They are eminently political. The Commission's president, in particular, while versed in the art of the possible, must reach out with foresight and imagination to lead the Union towards its goals. In that context, we may recall how Roy Jenkins, speaking as Commission president in Florence in October 1977, spelled out a new objective for the Union—the creation in Europe of a zone of currency stability to tackle inflation and unemployment. We may also recall how he recognised the necessity of bringing the member states onside to achieve that goal, and how he himself secured the consent of Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and President Valery Giscard d'Estaing. If in the world of the new 25-nation Europe such a practical role is to be exercised effectively, it must also be exercised democratically.
	The Prime Minister is surely right in acknowledging the need for continued, sustained leadership responsibility within the Union. Without it, the Union will be reduced to ad hoc cobbling together of responses to events. The required leadership cannot stem from the merry-go-round of the Council presidency. It requires a statesman of calibre and commitment to preside over the Union's executive, who is acceptable to and will work with the Council to fulfil its strategic aims. That statesman should also enjoy the authority that flows from democratic election.
	That thought must lead to the consideration of the function of the European Parliament. It, too, has an indispensable role in directly voicing the views of the citizens in legislation and in holding the Union's executive to account. When the public elects a Parliament, it expects much more than the European Parliament is able to offer. It expects that the outcome of the election will have some effect on the policy priorities of that polity of which Parliament is part. It also expects that the election will have direct consequences in confirming or changing the leadership of that polity. The citizens of Europe have been denied those outcomes, and it is not to be marvelled at that interest in European elections is declining when the outcomes are so limited.
	These are among the issues that the convention must address, and soon. If the Union is to cohere, to tackle effectively the tasks that its citizens want it to discharge, the convention must not—and, I believe, will not—funk the issue of democracy. That, as I see it, is the heart of the matter before us.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, as several noble Lords have said, it is high time to consider progress in the Convention on the Future of Europe. The convention is entering the last six months of its activity. By the middle of the year, it will pass over to an intergovernmental conference of member states the building blocks that will make up the next stage of the European Union's construction. The shaping of that latter negotiation—of the greatest importance to Britain as a leading member of the Union—will take place in the first half year of 2003.
	It is also high time for the holding of this debate, given the tell-tale signals, already visible, of a familiar but dispiriting cycle, evident at many previous critical stages in the Union's development, in terms of Britain's approach. During the first phase, we largely ignore the debate raging in Brussels, treating it as one of those funny, esoteric games that continental politicians love to play but which need not greatly trouble the minds of practical, pragmatic and down-to-earth Britons, who have managed so well down the centuries without having to worry about such things as constitutions. The second phase is dominated by "shock-horror" stories in the assiduously Eurosceptic press, as each idea washed up on the wilder shores of European federalism is lovingly dissected and treated as if it were about to become holy writ throughout Europe. The third phase is one of trench warfare, in which British negotiators devote the largest part of their time and energy to blocking ideas put forward by others, the conclusion of which is a new treaty whose British battle honours largely consist of what does not appear in it, thanks to our doughty resistance. It may be said that I exaggerate—but not much, I fear.
	If we are to avoid a repetition of that caricature, we must, as the Government and their representative in the convention have from the outset tried to do, propose our own ideas and suggestions for the future shaping of the Union. Both Houses of Parliament, which in the end will be the arbiters through the process of ratification of what may become binding treaty obligations in this country, must be an integral part of the process. Otherwise, we shall simply be a rubber stamp.
	The convention's scope is extremely wide, as the debate has shown. I shall concentrate on the management and direction of the Union's external affairs. I do so not arbitrarily but because it is likely to be the greatest challenge to the Union's viability and credibility in the period ahead. Up to now, that policy area has lagged behind most others, such as the single market and the single currency. Some argue that a common foreign and security policy is neither attainable or desirable, but they risk playing the role of King Canute's courtiers. In fact, such a policy is taking shape before our eyes.
	In the Balkans, European policy is already a key factor. In a short time, now that the final difficulties over the modalities of co-operation between the Union and NATO have been ironed out, the Union is likely to be involved in military and police activities in Macedonia and Bosnia. In the Middle East, the European Union is one of the quartet of external players struggling to move away from the violence and back to a viable peace process. At Copenhagen, momentous decisions were taken on the Union's enlargement, including Turkey's candidature, which will have a fundamental and far-reaching impact on a whole range of Europe's external relationships. So the choice that we face is not whether to have a European foreign and security policy but what its contents should be and how it should be run.
	On that last point, I should say straightaway that I do not believe that the Commission's proposal to apply what is known as the community method to those external areas of policy is either practical politics or the best way in which to proceed. One will not find the right way forward by applying the well-tried methods for handling single-market legislation or trade policy—the Commission's right of initiative, the application of majority voting pretty well across the board, responsibility to a European Parliament that lacks a governmental majority or a direct voice for the national governments that have to make the ultimate life or death choices in this field. Here, as elsewhere, it is important to avoid an outright juxtaposition of a federalist with a purely intergovernmental approach. The European Union has from the outset been a hybrid animal, somewhere between the two extremes, and I believe that it will remain so for the foreseeable future.
	I make six suggestions for the way ahead on external policy. First, whatever the advantages of the presidency system for the handling of strictly Community business—and the recent Danish presidency was an example of how well that can be done—the presidency system in a Union of 25 or more member states cannot possibly provide the required focus, professionalism or leadership for a common foreign and security policy. The sooner that the presidency's role in CFSP can begin to be phased out, the better. Ideally, a new balance in the management of CFSP needs to be up and running before the new member states join in May 2004.
	Secondly, there are simply too many cooks in Europe's foreign policy kitchen. That makes for much confusion and duplication and enables our external partners to divide us and rule. The primacy of Javier Solana as the High Representative needs to be more firmly established, marked by his chairing the External Affairs Council. He needs a stronger staff back-up with a considerable degree of cross-posting between member states, diplomatic services and these integrated functions. He needs more financial resources. The interface with the Commission requires a solution that avoids subordinating Solana or his successor to its institutional characteristics but encourages much closer co-operation, joint departments where necessary and a unity of control and policy making in times of crisis.
	Thirdly, while qualified majority voting in this field bristles with difficulties, there must be a way of avoiding the Union's foreign policy becoming the lowest common denominator of 25 or more member states. A system closer to that of the UN Security Council, under which majority voting could be tempered by a right of veto for the larger member states—perhaps requiring two such states to act together, thus avoiding the arbitrariness of the UN system—might provide a fair balance.
	Fourthly, better and more systematic use needs to be made of Europe's biggest diplomatic asset: the network of its member states' diplomatic missions across the world. One way of proceeding would be to set up a panel composed of politicians and diplomatic practitioners to report on the best medium and long-term approach to operating a system that will promote the interests of the Union as a whole and at the same time enable the member states to continue to fulfil their own foreign policy responsibilities.
	Fifthly, the parliamentary dimension cannot and must not be neglected. Why not establish a foreign affairs committee of the Union which would bring together representatives of the national parliaments and those of the European Parliament and act as a sounding board and a source of democratic legitimacy for the Union's foreign and security policy?
	Sixthly, thought needs to be given to the management of the single most important external relationship that Europe has—that with the United States. The hard fact is that if Europe and the United States get at cross purposes, they tend to frustrate the achievement of their frequently shared overall objectives. We saw that in Bosnia. However, their interests and their approach to foreign policy crises are not always and will not always be identical. So a way surely needs to be found to create an organic link between the two sides of the Atlantic that enables information—often sensitive information—to be exchanged and policy options to be discussed without all of that having to be carried out under the glare of publicity and being subjected to the pressures of public controversy.
	It would be interesting to hear the Minister's reaction to at least some of those ideas and how the Government themselves intend to contribute to the convention's future work on Europe's common foreign and security policy.
	I shall conclude with a wider look at the place of the convention and the coming intergovernmental conference in the overall development of the European Union. In recent years, there have been far too many of these conclaves and too much institutional tinkering. The successes of the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty, which laid the foundations for the single market, the single currency and a common foreign and security policy, gave way to the muddle and confusion of Amsterdam and Nice. Digging the plant up and examining its roots every five years or so is not a prescription for steady, healthy growth. The present convention, with the near certain outcome of a constitutional document that will distinguish the basic elements of the Union from the necessarily continuing evolution of its main policies, offers a way out of this seemingly unending series of negotiations. The challenge that governments face this year is to seize that opportunity, to find a series of compromises with which federalisers and intergovernmentalists can live and to address, with undistracted vigour, the main policy choices that will determine how well the European Union succeeds in achieving its settled objectives. That is surely the only way of making the European Union seem truly relevant to the daily lives of the mass of its citizens.

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, I warmly welcome the debate. I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and the Select Committee for all their work. However, we still need to address two other issues: first, the values that are implicit in the work of the convention and in the European institutions; and, secondly, that deathly silence about things European within British society, which the Minister described as the growing sense of disengagement and disillusion across Europe.
	One of the great privileges of being a Bishop in this House is in saying daily prayers. I recognise that for some the saying of those prayers here will seem a quaint and irrelevant anachronism. Some will be glad that prayers happen, though they themselves will not necessarily take part. For others, the prayers are fundamental, not only because of what they say about God, but because of what they imply about the role of us all in this Chamber. Whatever views any of us takes about those prayers, they are a reminder at the very least of the possibility of God. They are predicated on a belief that we are not solely answerable to one another and to society, but that we may also be answerable to Almighty God.
	Whether you actually believe that or not is not exactly the point. Even if personally you have drawn the conclusion that there is no God, allowing for the possibility of God ensures that debate in this House has a dimension that it logically could not have without it.
	It does not follow from what I have said that I am in favour of theocracy as a form of government. I believe that wherever it rears its head theocracy should be resisted, tooth and nail. What I argue for is that the concept—it is a very mild one at one level—of the possibility of God should not be kicked into the margins in our debate about European institutions and the European future. However, my experience of the European institutions as they are emerging is that God is simply discounted and denied—"Laicity rules okay" and that secularist ideologies of governance are becoming stridently and assertively exclusive.
	With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan—I am sure that he is not at all surprised that I have risen to the theological fly that he cast across the water—the theological concept of perichoresis is not primarily about individualism, but the communal relationships of the person within the godhead. "Europe" can and does cope with private expressions of religious belief, but it is not coping, cannot cope and wilfully will not cope with institutional or communal forms of religious belief, of whatever faith that belief may be.
	That is a serious moral weakness in the underlying philosophy of the institutions. It is proving to be a serious weakness in what the Minister referred to as the European political architecture, because it wilfully denies the possibility of God. Therefore, it wilfully denies serious and long-held beliefs about human dignity and worth and purpose that have helped to shape Europe for the best part of 2,000 years. It limits the vision of what it means to be a human being, and of what it means to be a "human being in community". To set up a Europe based on that kind of narrowness of philosophy is to design potential failure into the system.
	Will the Minister assure this House that, for the sake of richness and diversity in Europe, the role of the Churches and other religious communities in relation to the European institutions and their political architecture will be given serious attention? Might she also be willing to be generous enough to suggest that the good practices which have grown up in this nation over the centuries in this regard might be worthy of further study, not only by Her Majesty's Government but by governments across Europe? To want to be at the heart of Europe and yet, at the same time, to ignore the soul of Europe would be to make a profound mistake.
	My second point relates to the serious lack of high-quality public debate about things European in this nation. It hardly happens at all and, if it does, it is simply based around sound-bites about the five economic tests and when a referendum might be held.
	I was very fortunate to be present in Parliament when the BBC World Service organised a seminar on the threat of war in Afghanistan. Some of your Lordships may also have been present. The seminar was brilliant. It was the BBC at its very, very best. Is it not possible for a public-service broadcaster to see that it has a duty not only to entertain but also to inform and educate? Endless make-overs of homes and gardens and endless narcissistic reality television mean that the brilliance that exists in the BBC is being completely wasted.
	In our country a serious contribution to the debate about Europe is long overdue. The talent is there. Can someone please allow it to be released so that the citizens of our country can help to shape the European future and not simply be pawns in a future being shaped by others?
	I conclude by joining everyone else in the House in urging that this subject be brought back to this place with the frequency which its profound importance to the life of our nation and to Europe so richly deserves.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, together with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, it has been my privilege to represent your Lordships' House as one of the alternate members of the convention. As one of your Lordships' representatives, I am perhaps entitled to say that I am somewhat disappointed with the dynamic flow of information coming from my constituency and giving me the benefit of noble Lords' views. But I appreciate the one letter that I have received and the number of conversations that I have had with Members, particularly in the Bishops' Bar.
	It is important that we understand a little more deeply than we do at present some of the processes of the convention. It does not meet only in a plenary format. Every time there is a two-day plenary session, the political groups across the institutions meet on the morning of the first day. After they have met, the national parliamentarians of various countries and political groups meet so that they can gain a sense of common view of what is important to national parliamentarians.
	At the same time as the national parliamentarians meet, governments also meet to seek to defend their interests. Then, in order to deny us lunch on the first day of the convention, the Brits meet at 2.15 p.m., be they from national parliaments, national government or the European Parliament, so that we have a sense of common understanding of the views that are important to those who come from the United Kingdom.
	Against that background, we have seen a change in the convention itself. Over recent weeks, a number of governments have decided to have a very high level of representation, as the British Government did right from the start. For example, originally the German Government were represented by a civil servant; they are now represented by their Foreign Minister. Mr de Villepin has just become a member of the convention. Ireland was represented by a former Commissioner but is now represented by its Foreign Secretary.
	We have seen that change come about as more and more governments are represented at a more serious level, such as has been the case for this country with my right honourable friend Peter Hain and my noble friend Lady Scotland representing government. Governments are taking the matter seriously because ultimately the convention will not decide the final outcome. Members of the convention will decide their deliberations but heads of government meeting in an IGC will decide the final outcome of the convention. If the convention produces ideas which are anathema to heads of government, then those ideas will be dispatched to the dustbin. Therefore, the convention must take into account the views of governments, who will clearly have final responsibility at the IGC.
	We heard the description of the work of the working groups and I do not propose to go through that again. Suffice it to say that, even though there has been some sort of debate, those working groups in their totality will not be binding on the convention because there can be no sense in which they were structured to be representative of the convention. Therefore, I believe that at this stage, when we are debating the convention, almost every single issue is still to play for.
	During that period, the dynamics within the convention have changed. I could see how quickly things have changed when I looked at the report introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. Paragraph 57 states:
	"Lord Tomlinson told us that the MEPs were the most coherent group".
	That was certainly the case at the beginning of the convention. The MEPs were in their home territory with their offices and staff and with easy access to communications. The visiting national parliamentarians were the political gypsies of the convention—they had nowhere even to hang a coat.
	The dynamics of the convention have changed dramatically. I believe that today it is true to say that, as the national parliamentarians have come to understand each other's points of view and have come to know each other better, their representation has strengthened significantly and is certainly far greater than pessimists such as myself saw it earlier as having the potential to be.
	Many ideas have been put forward. They have all been published on the convention website and are in the public arena. Many of them are mutually contradictory. Some are gathering support and some are clearly failing to do so. I do not want to deal with the big issues of the convention; my role today is to listen to your Lordships' points of view. But one issue that has been circulating in the framework of the convention is the idea of a congress.
	When that idea was put forward, it was widely rubbished in the early stages and it seemed that it would disappear. However, it has been put forward by a number of people, including the French Government. The idea lives on and I hope that noble Lords will give some attention to it. I hope that they will not necessarily reject it but will regard it as depending on what it finally turns out to be. If the idea of a congress is something similar to the Rome assizes tried a decade ago, then I agree that it should be killed off quickly. However, if it is to be on a much smaller scale, gives the opportunity to involve national parliamentarians on a real basis, and, for example, has the capacity to replace COSAC, which gives national parliamentarians, if this is the outcome of the convention, the opportunity perhaps to endorse the Commission's work programme and to have a say on the appointment or election of a Commission president—certainly if there are the changes envisaged by Her Majesty's Government it would have a say over the appointment or election of a council president—I believe it is an idea which still has some utility. There are real possibilities.
	However, all those issues beg the question of the institutional changes, which are now the big issues to be faced in the convention. I am slightly concerned that too many people are approaching institutional changes from the point of view of an almost triangular battle for competencies between the institutions. Certainly, the last paper produced by the European Commission did no good whatever for the reputation of that institution. I regret that because I believe that the Commission has an important role in this future institutional structure.
	The whole idea of institutional balance, referred to by my noble friend Lady Scotland, is extremely important. The idea of giving the European Parliament power to elect a European Commission President is one which should be rejected because it changes significantly institutional balance. On the other hand, the idea of a second Chamber made up of national parliamentarians was rejected by this House and has been widely rejected in the convention because it would change the balance against the European Parliament in a different direction.
	The role proposed by the convention in relation to subsidiarity has wide support. The role proposed for a national parliament by the working group of Gisela Stuart has had wide support and I believe deserves the support of Members of this House. My noble friend Lady Scotland stated that those institutional reforms need balance, and she is right. What must be avoided is the attempt to turn the institutional questions into an inter-institutional triangular battle.
	Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, to five words from the speech of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister given in Cardiff; namely,
	"a proper Constitution for Europe".
	That was all he chose to quote. In order to understand the balance of what was being said it is important that we see those five words in the context of the sentence:
	"First, we do need a proper Constitution for Europe, one which makes it clear that the driving ideology is indeed a union of nations not a superstate subsuming national sovereignty and national identity. This should be spelt out in simple language. A new Constitution for Europe can bring a new stability to the shape of Europe—not a finality which would prevent any future evolution, but a settlement to last a generation or more".
	That is certainly, in a very short paragraph, the view that I have of the role of the convention and a role in which I look forward to participating over the next three to four months.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, who succeeded throughout his speech and at the end in presenting his view with great clarity. Before going on to analyse it, I should like to make a personal statement. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell told me that the Procedure Committee discussed the habit of some Members of this House who apologise for being absent towards the end of a debate and disappear rather than remain to hear the closing speeches. In the light of my noble friend's warning, I checked and found that in two of the four debates we have had on this subject in the past three years I have done just that. I promise to be a good boy in future. I do that because I hope others will do the same.
	Beyond that, I take much comfort from the fact that this debate is taking place, and from the way in which it is developing. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for her presentation and insight, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and the two rapporteurs, if that is the right description: the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan and Lord Tomlinson, for their insight.
	The debate is a signal of much greater vitality and parliamentary engagement in the institutional changes of the European Union. The fact that the convention is taking place is a similar development. We should be grateful to former President Giscard D'Estaing for the way in which he is running it. I cannot resist a word of thanks to the Foreign Office official who, to the surprise of some people, I appointed as my principal private secretary when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He benefits from being trained not only in the Foreign Office but also by my noble friend Lord Lawson and myself in the Treasury. I refer to Sir John Kerr, who is helping Giscard D'Estaing. I am very glad that he is in that position.
	A point of great seriousness is the openness and flow of views passing between those considering the institutional changes and these parliaments. I take my mind back to the IGC which led to the Single European Act. It was preceded by a rather solemn sounding body called the Dooge Committee, named after Senator Dooge of the Republic of Ireland, on which my learned friend, as he was in another place, Malcolm Rifkind, was our representative. It proceeded almost unobserved and it was left to the governments to come together in the IGC, building upon the work of faceless civil servants who worked with diligence, I hasten to add. Today there is a much greater flow of ideas taking place. The Dooge Committee has been completely surpassed by the present engagement of parliamentarians throughout the European Union and in this place.
	As leader of the other place I recollect establishing a new procedure for the handling of EU legislation—to enable us more carefully to scrutinise it, ran the argument. Instead of sitting after 10 o'clock at night, special committees were convened at 10.30 in the morning to carry out this ruthless procedure. The main reason for making that change was so that people did not have to stay late at night. The quality and degree of intensity of scrutiny did not significantly improve or increase as a result of the change. In other words, it was being driven by our own parliamentary convenience rather than our wish to engage in the work of the European Union. That is the big difference now. It has been well described by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson.
	As I anticipated, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke of the way in which we should handle foreign relations within the European Union, and our common foreign security policy. Broadly speaking, I endorse his approach. It has to be founded upon intergovernmental activity. At different times over the years we have both commended the idea of something approaching a veto for the large powers in CFSP determination. As the noble Lord knows from his other life in New York, that proposition imposes an obligation upon the permanent members to secure agreement and achieve a unity in trying to drive forward a common foreign policy. But it respects the anxieties which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Owen, will express and which are at the heart of reality here.
	It is also true that what we achieve in the European Union depends in the end much more upon our actions than upon the texts that we spend so much time scrutinising. However, the texts are not unimportant. We are considering what will be a constitution. That arouses cries of, "Shock horror: constitution of the European Union". The European Union has always had a constitution. The Treaty of Rome and the various treaties that have been written on top of it have been the constitutional framework within which we work. It has become a mammoth of Pelion upon Ossa upon Pelion upon Ossa, of mounting unintelligibility. That is why I have much sympathy with my noble friend Lord Lamont when he was rather dismissive about the affection of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, for the acquis communautaire.
	I remember in the course of the national debate before the Thatcher government were elected, committing ourselves to the proposition that we should make fewer laws and make the laws fewer. We failed probably in both respects. Successive governments have continued to do so. But we should certainly adopt that approach towards the acquis rather than regarding it as a sacred, layer upon layer, geological text, to be built upon indefinitely.
	It is therefore a legitimate purpose to have a constitution which looks more like a constitution. That would avoid the misleading perpetuity of "ever closer union" as an objective. That phrase has always conjured up for me a horrible picture of an eternally restless polygamous matrimonial bed in which people were struggling to achieve "ever closer union" on many fronts at the same time. That is not a picture that I relish. If we can have a constitution that is simpler than that, and one that has a degree of finality attached to it, I think that would be a great example.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, was right to emphasise the degree to which, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, Britain is making progress in this argument by being engaged actively in that process. The only qualification that I would make to that claim is that it is not without precedent. The most active period of engagement was under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Thatcher when we were promoting the achievement of the single market. We could not have been more effectively engaged than we were at that time and actively involved. That is, I think, the key to the success of the European Union when it is at its best. Where people effectively become engaged with each other and the purpose. M Delors, having learned some important lessons during his time as France's Finance Minister, became an active and effective market-driven president of the Commission. He worked in partnership with my noble friend, the market-driven Lady Thatcher, and others, including incidentally my noble friend Lord Cockfield who made a huge contribution to that achievement, and who is not, alas, in his place today.
	The question is: what propositions should we be supporting against that background of activity? I refer to the document produced last August under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Brittan, supported by six or seven Members of this House who are former Ministers and six or seven former Conservative Ministers in the other House, setting out an agenda not unlike that which has been pursued by the Government.
	The first point was stressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. She said that we need to have clarity about where power lies. That is very important. It was also supported by my noble friend Lord Howell. We need something like a states rights clause, setting out clearly what is already implicit—that the European Union has competence only where it has been specifically given such competence by the treaty. If that does not exist, then it does not have power.
	The second point in line with that is the machinery for the surveillance of subsidiarity. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, among other noble Lords has referred to that. That subsidiarity should be policed—this is also a great innovation—by representatives of the national parliaments coming together. My noble friend Lord Howell raised a doubt about the effectiveness of that. I have some sympathy with his anxiety. In the proposal we put forward, we say that when the whistle has been blown by the national parliamentarians the matter should go within a short period of time to the European Court of Justice for it to decide. In order for that to be an effective change, it needs that kind of back-up.
	The other point on which there is general agreement is the need for a radical reform of the presidency of the council. I apologise for using the word "presidency". It is confusing. I mean rather the chairmanship of the council, which suffers currently from a lack of continuity, short-termism and the absence of a public face. We need to have a chairman of the Council of Ministers elected and appointed for a period of years and supported by a troika of other member state representatives. The interesting point is that that heretical proposition, recognising the importance of the Council of Ministers, has secured the support of former President Delors, which is important.
	As to the Commission, a year or two ago I was attracted by the idea that its president should be elected by the European Parliament. I make a confession even more curious—I thought at one time that it was rather a good idea if one could have a Europe-wide political party, fighting Europe-wide European elections. One party could be led by myself, for example, and another by the noble Lord, Lord Owen. The European Parliament would be treated as an electoral college. When his party or my party won, it would be its job to elect the president of the Commission. It is an attractive thought although we are both a little past it now, if I may say so.
	I have resiled from that proposition now. It seems to me to put the Commission in a false position. The Commission is not the source of authority. The bridge of this vessel is the Council of Ministers, the European council. The Commission has to be a well-run part of the engine room. It needs to have leadership. It needs to have a very good chief engineer. That is the right relationship, which I hope will emerge from the discussion that is taking place.
	The last point I want to make is a also a simple one. We need to have some method of securing a more effective and rigorous enforcement of European law. People are always apprehensive if one is talking vigorously about the importance of Community law. I take some pride in the fact that when I was editing Crossbow in 1962, we published almost the first authoritative text entitled The Rome Treaty and the Law, written by Denis Thompson. That 1962 text set out that under the jurisdiction of the European Community the Community would have powers to make laws which were forthwith directly binding upon and enforceable against citizens of member states.
	There is no mystery. Without that formal Community law, most of our obligations could not be enforced. We would not have been able even to try to get the French to accept British beef, for example. We have had to wait a long time to see that happen.
	So the proposal I make is that where an obligation is not being enforced, it would be possible for the aggrieved party, the aggrieved member state, to go back within a short space of time to the European Court of Justice to get a ruling within three months; and the sanctions which would be available to the court would be not only the imposition of financial sanctions but the withdrawal of the right to participate in Community programmes, the withdrawal if necessary of voting rights and participation in decision taking—a robust, effective means of enforcing Community law to the benefit of us all.
	I have spoken for too long. But I welcome the debate. I welcome the way that our colleagues are taking part in this exciting but not unimportant process of changing the world in which we live. I close, perhaps surprisingly, by quoting a sentence from the speech made by my right honourable friend Michael Ancram, the shadow Foreign Secretary, in the debate in the other place on 11th December. This is the robust and practical view. He said that,
	"the EU can be made to work better. In the 21st century, it still has a vital role to play".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/02; col. 313.]
	So long as my party remains committed to that proposition, which is the proposition that the late Lord Jenkins made possible for us as we said earlier today, I shall be content about the future of the European Union.

Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his committee for the opportunity for this debate. It is to be hoped—I am sure expected—that the House will have other occasions to debate the development of this convention. Quite apart from anything else, if we had not had this debate, we would not have been attracted by the prospect, perhaps now passed, of the noble Lords, Lord Howe and Lord Owen, leading great battalions of cross-European confederations in political battle.
	Early in the Minister's detailed and excellent speech she admitted that the homes and pubs of the United Kingdom are not abuzz with constitutional debate; that the niceties of the balance between the institutions does not to this moment grip the imagination of the population. That is true. Perhaps one should also say to the right reverend Prelate that despite that important exchange between himself and the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, on the theological import of what is happening, theological debate does not appear to have gripped them either.
	However, I should like to comment on a particular aspect which the right reverend Prelate brought to our attention. If we are seriously talking about a constitution for Europe, a constitution without an awareness of the values on which the Union is based would indeed be seriously flawed. It is curious that we find it so hard to think about the values of the European Union. The right reverend Prelate drew the House's attention to the responsibility of public broadcasters to ensure that not just the immediate but the underlying arguments—and the values behind them—about the future of the European Union are discussed.
	One reason why it is so difficult to get a wider debate in the United Kingdom—and it is—is because there is an underlying feeling in our country that the past is almost without argument, better than the present and infinitely better than the future can ever be. Over Christmas and the New Year I did a little sum, and I noticed that during that period the main terrestrial television networks aired more than 30 feature films dealing with the Second World War. It is of course right that we remember the Second World War, draw lessons from it and take pride in it, but it is most unfortunate if people are obsessive to the point of not allowing us to look forward to the future and foresee a Europe in which we play a powerful, formative and principled role.
	Several noble Lords said that it is interesting that a convention that in its earliest weeks and months was dismissed as peripheral and doomed to failure is now taken more seriously and appears more substantial. However, I suspect that the convention retains a Cinderella quality. There is a feeling that while Europe discusses the intricacies of its constitutional balance, the real world—namely, the situation in Iraq or the Middle East—may break through and make it all rather irrelevant. One reason why the convention is becoming substantial and its considerations important is that basic drivers—new realities—are pressing in on us that make it imperative to have greater clarity about Europe's constitutional arrangements.
	We have the fact of enlargement. The way in which enlargement was discussed—in particular, the opening of dialogue with Turkey in a new way, which will certainly involve the values of the European Union in future—has in itself unlocked a large barrier to the development of common defence and security policies within the European Union. It has had a knock-on effect. Enlargement is a fact and it is clear to everyone that the constitutional arrangements that only just work for 15 members cannot possibly work for 25 or more.
	The second driver is a growing sense that we must have more of a voice in foreign and security issues. There must be more coherence and greater co-ordination. While in part we sit back as spectators to that achievement—I notice that the Prime Minister referred in his Cardiff speech to the fact that the High Representative and Mr Patten have succeeded in projecting greater coherence and impact—there is a strong sense, widely shared in the House, that there must be still greater coherence and co-ordination.
	Thirdly—although there are other factors, and this is not the real subject of our debate—there is the fact that the euro has arrived, has lasted and did not tumble into failure, as many predicted in its first few weeks. Indeed, its value against the dollar is rising. It is clearly here to stay and the problem for us will not go away. That is another driver.
	However, we must recognise that those drivers are not sufficient really to engage popular imagination or debate. At the heart of what the convention must now face is not the fleshing out of detail but coming to some landing on where power sits within the European Union. It is significant that within two weeks France and Germany will lay on the table their proposals for where that landing may be. It will be a great challenge for them to arrive at any common landing. The truth is that those two countries represent highly distinct positions on the future of the European Union.
	Not to caricature the position, but perhaps getting to its essentials, the instinct of the Federal Republic of Germany—in which it would have the support of many smaller countries of the European Union and, I suspect, the enlarged Union—is still that the Union should not be dominated by institutions that, in their turn, are dominated by the larger states, and that in the balance of institutional power, the European Commission should be strengthened and its political legitimacy enhanced. France, on the other hand, has an instinct, which is surely nearer to ours, that this is a Europe of nations—a phrase that the French like to use—in which the key institution is the Council of Ministers, and that the top priority is to gain greater coherence in the Council of Ministers, including altering the arrangements for its presidency.
	Earlier, we remembered the role of the late Lord Jenkins. It was my good fortune to work for him in Brussels for four years. I recall that the most interesting aspect of that time was twice having with others sat in on what were in effect telephone conferences—although they were not called that then—between Roy Jenkins sitting in the Berlaymont in Brussels, Giscard d'Estaing in Paris and Helmut Schmidt, the then German Chancellor, in Bonn.
	Lord Jenkins used to chair those telephone conferences. Although we did not have video links in those days, so that the inimical rotund gestures of Roy Jenkins could not be seen, he nevertheless used all his persuasive powers—incidentally, all the conversations took place in English—to bring those very different men, one perpetually gloomy, the other erratically buoyant, to some form of agreement. Why did he do that? Because he understood, as we must, that we cannot progress in Europe unless there is a fundamental agreement between Germany and France.
	Thinking back, it is interesting that that agreement was made possible, or certainly enormously enabled, by a very British skill in pushing for practical advance—pragmatic advance, if you like—concentrating on concrete matters, such as Roy Jenkins' ideas for again kick-starting the lapsed process of European economic and monetary union, informed, although the issue at stake was not democracy, by a democratic instinct about the nature of debate and disagreement and how to put together agreement in its place.
	I urge the Minister and the Government, in considering this country's role in the final stages of the European convention, to see it as being quite the equal of that of France and Germany, although their membership much predates ours, but a creative one, informed by an instinct for democracy and practicality. We must at least begin to solve the disconnection between the powers and capabilities of the European Union, the involvement of people in the process and their understanding of what is being discussed and decided.
	There is one factor that we can identify and which we must address, whatever the ultimate solution. We cannot go on saying to electors in Europe, who have all sorts of votes—local votes, regional votes, city votes and national votes—that their European Union vote, with which they vote for the European Parliament, can have no measurable impact on the agenda of Europe or the governance of Europe. We must address that disconnection, and we should have a British instinct for addressing it.
	None of us has a neat solution. Lots of ideas have been propounded, and one that I heard for the first time this evening was that put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, who spoke about transnational parties. Unless people are persuaded that voting for the European Parliament makes a difference, we can write as many constitutions as we like and summarise them on little plastic cards that people can carry around, saying, "This is Europe", but people will not feel it, will not understand it and will see it as being remote.
	I hope that, in the Minister's response tonight and, more importantly, in what happens over the next few months, there will be a sense of optimism on the part of Her Majesty's Government that the British view can and will make a real and marked difference.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I follow the general sweep of the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond. The Government have been more active in presenting Europe, as the noble Lord suggested, but there is the major question of the nervous breakdown in some parts of the national consciousness when it comes to the idea of a constitution. In handling that matter, the convention is one of the most useful EU innovations in recent years. When debating the question a few months ago of whether there should be a second Chamber in the EU, one or two of us said, "Well, we have one". The relationship between the different parts of the European jigsaw in the convention will prove its worth.
	It seems inevitable that the Official Opposition will portray the outcome of the convention as being akin to the conclusions of the convention in Philadelphia in 1787. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that that was, in a sense, the thrust of his point about the convention. It is certainly in many people's minds; we cannot say that it is not there. M Giscard d'Estaing himself alluded to it. It will be unfortunate if what comes out of the convention is portrayed as being the same as what came out of the convention of Philadelphia in 1787, following the declaration of independence in 1776—that was the time that it took before they got there—just because it looks a bit like it. We must educate the British people to understand that that is not the case. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, said, Europe is sui generis and is not like anything that has ever existed. It is counter-productive simply to look for convenient slogans, such as "the United States of Europe", with all the connotations of Philadelphia.
	That ties in with the fact that the people who wanted a settlement in Europe included many on the Benches opposite who had said that there was too much drift and incrementalism and that we should define the animal. I do not know what happened to that school of thought, but the question must, logically, be addressed in that spirit.
	I welcome many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, about the presidency of the Council of Ministers, although the noble Lord does not need my support. In half a dozen minutes, he made half a dozen valuable points, ranging from the role of Mr Solana to his most interesting comment that Europe needed a security council akin to the Security Council of the United Nations, with x permanent members—I think that that was the implication—and some rotating members. That is one solution to the question of how we allow the big and small countries to have some ownership of Europe and how we can get away from the caravanserai of presidencies. One minute, we are in Corfu and, next minute, we are in Parvoo. In the future, it will be Tallinn one minute and Szeged the next. Although the plus side of that system is the ownership by those countries, it is not a sensible way to run a bigger Europe.
	I must add a few words in defence of the Commission, although it is an unfashionable thing to do. I have not heard anybody say much in favour of the Commission, but it has been the greatest success story in politics since the war. The distinguished people on the Commission—Roy Jenkins has been mentioned, but Neil Kinnock and Chris Patten are also, in their way, distinguished politicians—provide a balance of political weight. The Commission's power of initiative has driven things forward time and again. Again, it is different from any other political structure—in history or at present.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, was right to say that there needed to be a continued balance between the Commission and the Council of Ministers. If we simply had a secretariat for the Council of Ministers, the necessary homework on the proposed legislation would not have been done. I can give some examples from the social field, which is coming again into focus. From the start, the founders of Europe—Monnet and Schuman through to Jacques Delors—thought that the social dimension was important not only because there was a social market economy but because that was how the people could identify with the project. There is nothing wrong with that; we have been discussing it for most of the past couple of hours. Initiatives were agreed then about which no one sees anything wrong now, even though, at the time, in this country, we were collectively at the Eurosceptic end of the market. What about equal pay? That originated in Brussels 30 years ago. What about the transfer of employment protection? That originated in Brussels 20 years ago. We can bring the story up to date with the rights of part-time workers and so on.
	We must present some of the changes in national labour markets as things that European countries are doing together. In Europe, there is a close connection between the economic and the social dimension. The Amsterdam arrangements were a big step forward and were quite different from the characterisation of the commissioners as being interested only in producing directives.
	There were four pillars concerned with the labour market—adaptability, employability, equal opportunity and vocational training. That has been the main emphasis of the Commission in the social field since that time. It is nonsense to say that the Commission is showing a dinosaur approach to structural change in a market economy. Is it not a paradox that people now say the Germans are the dinosaurs and that we should find means to help them change? The European Commission becomes more involved in setting new benchmarks for structural change and that is then turned on its head and portrayed as the famous super state.
	I turn now to the role of this House. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, mention not only the report today, but the report on the review of scrutiny of European legislation. On page 38 there is a question which we must think carefully about. I am not sure that the ambition to have everything considered in four weeks, when it is the subject of co-decision, is workable. We in this House have too much genuflection to the theory of scrutiny when our actual appetite for considering more than a selective number of issues is simply not there. The moral is that we must forego the luxury of standing on our dignity, which is not in short supply, and having acrimonious correspondence with Ministers about who has not cleared a document. We need to consider some new criteria of selectivity in that regard.
	All of this has to be presented to the British people in the next few months. It will be mixed with the question of the euro. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, suggested another referendum. Maybe it is all the same referendum. Perhaps the referendum will be about Europe. I believe that young people see what Europe is about. If there is to be the idea of a wider referendum, let us recognise that the euro is part of it. It should be part of our civics teaching in schools because, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said, we must ensure that this is part of the wider vision that we present to the British people.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, perhaps I may follow on from one point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and apologise to the Minister and to my noble friend on the Front Bench for the fact that I shall not be here at the end of the debate. That is very regrettable, but I had undertaken to visit a friend going into hospital and I had not appreciated the lateness at which the debate would end. For that I apologise.
	At the outset, I should like to make it clear that I have no fundamental quarrel with the idea of a convention. However, it has seemed to me at times that the purpose of the convention has been somewhat confused. At times, the main purpose has been to bring Europe closer to the people; at times, the purpose has been to make it more comprehensible; at other times, the purpose has been to make Europe ready for enlargement; and at other times, the purpose has been to define the competencies of the different institutions of the European Union. I believe that the latter is particularly important and something that I would welcome.
	The matters being debated in the convention are complex. We are fortunate in this debate to have heard speakers who have been very closely involved with the affairs of the European Union. I refer to the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell, Lord Maclennan and Lord Tomlinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who have been directly involved in the convention. We shall hear later from the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Williamson.
	However, with great respect to all those who are familiar with so many of the terms, on so many of the institutions and so many of the mechanisms—talk of pillars, subsidiarity, proportionality, qualified majority voting as distinct from majority voting, the high representative as distinct from the Commissioner for External Affairs and even the President of the Council as opposed to the President of the Commission—I would suggest that not one person in 10,000 understands those terms. The idea that the convention will make the institutions of Europe comprehensible to the people of this country is a delusion. It will not do that.
	It seems that in many ways the convention is in danger of going off the rails. We have the proposals on subsidiarity. The hills have certainly been in labour but they have produced a very small brown mouse indeed. The recommendations of the subsidiarity group, Group 4, are that legislative proposals should be submitted to national parliaments for a view—"for a view". There is no guarantee, nor could there be, that national parliaments will be allowed a vote or that governments will pay any attention or that the Commission will pay any attention or that the Council of Ministers will pay any attention to what national parliaments recommend.
	That was conceded by the conclusions of Group 4 which stated:
	"Such a mechanism"
	—a mechanism for considering subsidiarity—
	"should not hinder or delay the legislative process".
	Perish the thought!
	The House of Commons Select Committee on European legislation quite rightly made the comment:
	"A real watchdog not just conveys views, it barks and occasionally bites".
	The proposals for subsidiarity need to be put in the overall context of more majority voting. It appears that these modest—modest—proposals are being traded in exchange for more majority voting.
	Subsidarity, as it operates at present, seems to be conceived back to front, if I may use such an inelegant phrase. Subsidiarity seems to be seen as something delegated from the national to the supranational, whereas one could equally argue that it could be the other way around. Instead of all the national parliamentarians being summoned by "Prince Giscard" to his cloth of gold, perhaps it would be more appropriate if the MEPs and representatives of European institutions had gone to national parliaments and national governments to ask them about the improvements that could be made to the machinery for decision making.
	There is one way only to demonstrate that subsidiarity has been taken seriously. That is to put forward proposals for the transfer of competencies back from European Union institutions to nation states. I do not see why that cannot be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, kindly gave way when I asked him about the acquis communautaire. I was not suggesting for one minute that the whole acquis communautaire should be dismantled. I was merely suggesting that somewhere, some time, a law passed by the European Union might have out-lived its usefulness. But no, in the European Union, democracy is a one-way street.
	Subsidiarity is a small bone that has been thrown into the conference. As the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said, what is actually happening is a fight between the triangle of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. They are all fighting for their own turf and not for considerations of good governance. Good governance seems to come a long way down the list of priorities.
	Against the proposal for subsidiarity we need to place the proposals that the EU Commission itself is demanding, which are quite extraordinarily far reaching. As put forward by Mr Prodi's speech of 5th December, they are suggesting that foreign affairs should be the prerogative of the Commission alone. The post of the high representative and the Commissioner for External Affairs should be merged into that of a secretary who would eventually have total responsibility for foreign and defence policies. Considerations of policy on taxation and justice matters are to have no veto under the proposals of the Commission. The EU's external frontiers are to be policed by EU frontier guards. "Why?", one might ask. What is the real pragmatic reason for that? Any country that is capable of being a state is surely capable of policing its own frontiers and it is hardly likely to be strengthened or improved by a so far non-existent, yet-to-be-tried, EU frontier force.
	"But never mind", we are told, "all these are only proposals". They are put forward only by the Commission and they should not be, in the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, "lovingly dissected". They should not be examined at all. But, from what one reads in the press, the ideas have some backing within the convention from the smaller countries and from Germany. Germany is developing an idea different from that of the Government; that is, instead of a President of the Council, a President of the Commission with greatly strengthened powers. It would be "a new kind of European Kaiser". These are not my words but those of the Minister of State, Mr MacShane, at the Foreign Office.
	Then we have the issue of the single legal personality. The significance of that has been disputed. I have read what the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, said about it: that the EU already has legal personality and that it is not a great step. I have also read what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson: that this does not lead to a collapse of the pillars and that a collapse of the pillars is not synonymous with the abolition of inter-governmentalism. I do not feel qualified to judge those arguments, but the real concern on which I hope the Minister will comment at the end of the debate is the extent to which the pillared approach will be compromised as a result of the convention. There are those areas in which inter-governmentalism has been the rule and the ECJ has competence only where there is joint decision-making. We have the impression that inter-governmentalism, in justice, in home affairs and internal security, is being transferred to the old Pillar One; to the EU itself.
	The real reverse in the convention seems to me to come with the charter of fundamental rights. Previously, the Government were proud of the fact that the charter would not be legally binding and therefore it was a success. I referred earlier to the remarks of Mr Vaz and to the Beano. The Minister said that of course the Beano could be referred to in court—but not, I believe, as a source of authority or a source for judicial decisions. But we will examine carefully what the noble Baroness said about horizontal articles. It seems likely that the incorporation of the charter into the treaties will mean that more areas will be as justiciable.
	The EU will have a constitution. The Foreign Secretary has said that that is not significant and that a golf club has a constitution. St Andrew's may have a constitution, but it does not have a rapid reaction force, a currency, a budget or a passport. And a constitution implies that the parts derive their authority from the centre rather than the other way round. When a charter is incorporated into the treaties, it will free the Commission to secure fundamental rights by proposing legislation particularly now that the EU has a legal identity and can be brought to court.
	The British Government have been pushing forward the idea of a longer term presidency for the Council. Increasingly, I would have thought, that idea looks somewhat irrelevant and is likely to be bypassed. It seems to have one flaw in it; that is, can we really believe that Mr Berlusconi, the Prime Minister, Mr Blair, or President Chirac, will cut off all their contact with the outside world or with the United States and submit only to the authority of the one spokesman as a long-term president of the Council? I find it a rather unreal idea.
	I submit that much of what is coming out of the convention is somewhat alarming. We have the usual soothing words, the implication that much of what has been said can be added to the mound of unread paper in Brussels. But much more likely is that ground will be yielded to the integrationists again and that will not enhance the good governance of this country. That is really what should never be lost sight of and what this debate is all about.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I greatly welcome the opportunity to debate the Convention on the Future of Europe. The Select Committee on the European Union, of which I am a member, in its 30th report of 25th July recommended that a debate on a government Motion be held no later than the end of the year. By submitting the debate now, a few days later, the Government have given us an extra Christmas present; that is, the opportunity to read or re-read the myriad documents submitted to the convention. I did that and I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who looks a little put out, that I also had some nice presents from my wife and others.
	The 30th report of the Select Committee is useful because it brings together the facts about the launch of the convention and its organisation and describes in a summary form some of the key issues in indicating how this House should be kept informed and should have a role to play. Time has moved on since then, but the Select Committee has been fulfilling its function in a timely manner.
	Today I do not want to concentrate on the organisation of the convention or, indeed, of the European institutions. I want to concentrate on what I consider to be the substantive issues where the convention is already well advanced and in particular on a treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. That is the crux of the matter and it is difficult to under-estimate its importance, although it has not been fully registered either in the other member states or, more particularly, with the British public.
	With the draft treaty go the other substantive issues which have been discussed in the working groups of the convention and reports have come forward. I base my remarks mainly on the helpful fourth and fifth reports from the parliamentary representatives. They contain not only the draft constitutional treaty but the full text, the final reports or conclusions of the working groups on five subjects which, in my opinion, are critical to the conclusion of the convention—and its saleability or not—to the public in the European Union, in particular in the United Kingdom.
	The first is the role of national parliaments. The second is the possible incorporation of the charter of fundamental rights into the treaties and the possible accession of the Community or Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. The third are the complementary competencies which the working group sensibly describes as "supporting measures". In my view, the draft treaty will need to restate specifically the exclusive and shared competencies of the Union and also the areas where the Union can assist or supplement national policies where that is in the common interest of the Union and member states.
	The treaty must also specifically include the long-established principle which has not always convinced Eurosceptics in the UK: that all powers not conferred by the treaty remain with the member states. I believe that when a full draft constitutional treaty comes forward the British public will be surprised to see how few are the exclusive competencies of the Union and that supporting measures will be a much greater focus for attention at that time.
	The fourth is the question of the possible conferral on the Union of a legal personality, by which the Union would have the right to conclude treaties and to become a member of international organisations. Many noble Lords have referred to that. The fifth is subsidiarity, but if the definition of "exclusive and shared competencies" and areas where supporting measures could be taken by the Union were definitively settled in a new treaty, and the monitoring role of national parliaments were clearly established, the issue of subsidiarity would become much less important.
	Sixthly, there is the issue of the simplification of legislative procedures, the report on which came forward from the working group rather later. I make my traditional point of asking the Government to keep their mind not only on primary legislation but also on secondary legislation. As we know, a vast amount of the acquis communautaire is secondary legislation and a vast amount of the problems quoted in the British media—some of which are not problems but are still quoted there—arise from secondary legislation which is subject to a different control—or, one might say, to an absence of control.
	I know that there are other working groups—on economic governance, internal and external security and external relations—but others have spoken to those issues and I shall not go into them today. I want to concentrate on the constitutional treaty and the six issues I have highlighted because, ultimately, they are likely to coalesce into one enormous issue. The changes in the role of national parliaments, the status of the charter of fundamental rights, the definition of Union competencies, the legal personality of the Union, the application of subsidiarity and the simplification of legislative procedures will, I emphasise, all be provided for in the new treaty. So all these issues will go eventually to governments, to parliaments and, we hope, to peoples, and that is where we need to concentrate.
	Almost 50 years ago, when I was a fairly well-informed young man, the Treaty of Rome was signed. Apart from the rise and fall of the Iron Curtain, it was perhaps the most important political event in Western Europe in that period. However, I do not recall that I ever knew that it had happened at the time. That is perhaps not surprising because on 26th March 1957 The Times devoted five inches of narrow column to it and the Daily Telegraph had 16 separate news items on its front page, none of which referred to the Treaty of Rome and its signing.
	I do not want to make too much of the sins of the past. I make the point only to stress the importance of a new constitutional treaty which will considerably replace the Treaty of Rome, as amended, inter alia, by the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice, which we have debated ad nauseam. It will require not only intensive scrutiny but will need to command the support of the British people. It is a major venture. It is a strategy of calculated risk. If the British people accept the new constitutional treaty, including those elements which derive from existing treaties and the main conclusions on the six key points I have mentioned, then generalised opposition to the European Union will have little purpose or force.
	I, for one, do not agree with the oft repeated point that no one ever provides enough information on the European Union for the British public. My very old house contains so many books on the European Union, which are printed in Britain and published every week, that there is a serious risk of the room in which I keep them on the first floor collapsing. There are masses of documents.
	However, despite the excellent efforts of our national representatives and the widespread availability of documents, the British public, as we all know, are more interested in the future of Terry Venables as manager of Leeds United than in a new constitutional treaty for Europe. That is the current situation. In due course, this will be an important point. It does not give me vast cause for concern at the moment because we are still only at the beginning. The convention itself has yet to take a position or establish options—perhaps by the middle of this year—but that will be a new, important step. Thereafter the governments of the member states will have to decide what they can or cannot support. Unanimity applies. It is the governments and peoples of the member states, including the United Kingdom, who have the sole power of decision. The Government have given assurances about consulting Parliament at the penultimate stage, as the Select Committee indicates in paragraph 51 of its report.
	I turn now, very briefly, to a small selection of important points in the working groups' reports. As to the parliamentary role, there is a proposal for a mechanism allowing national parliaments to convey early in the legislative process their view on the compliance or not of a legislative proposal with the principle of subsidiarity. That is good as far as it goes but, on this issue, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick—I do sometimes agree with him—that this is not a block, or even a temporary block, on the progress of a draft law. It is a step but it is not what was originally anticipated.
	Other recommendations are useful. For example, the open door procedure in the Council when it legislates and a new look at COSAC or a replacement.
	As to competencies, if we are to have a new treaty we need to define the kinds of competencies and the policies or activities to which they apply. Looking at the text, I believe that that is the intention set out in the draft summary constitutional treaty. It is a very important point for us because, in my view, it is the only way in which the UK public can be reassured in relation to a new treaty.
	Finally, we must not lose sight of the fact that for our fellow citizens the key issue is whether the actions of the EU are or are not good for them. The details of the institutions are matters of profound indifference to most of our citizens. For them, it is not whether the Commission has 15 or 25 members that matters, but what it proposes; it is not whether the Council meets in five or eight configurations that matters, but what it decides. The future must surely be to look towards a new constitutional treaty, with some of the changes that I have highlighted, and to concentrate our attention on the value or not of the proposals which come forward from the Commission and the decisions made in the Council and the Parliament.

Lord Brennan: My Lords, the convention and governmental decisions to be made upon it represent a critical stage in the journey of the European Union. It is critical because the very existence of the convention is an acknowledgement that the present framework is inadequate. Clearly so, when in the past 50 years it has sought to deal with a divided Europe and, in the next 50 or more, it will seek to deal with the enlarged Europe of at least 25 nations and more than 300 million peoples. The question which the convention debates, and on which governments must decide, is how will that Europe best be governed.
	There are two alternatives. The first, if the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will permit me to use his words, is the route of a minimum of legislation coupled with flexibility and national manoeuvrability. I hope that I have his words correct. For me, that is such a challenging combination of the nebulous and the unpredictable as to defy any reasoned democratic analysis. I regret that I have to disagree with the noble Lord and to adopt the more realistic route—that is, a system of legislation which governments and peoples will acknowledge to be the basis upon which they are governed.
	Whether such a new framework is in a treaty or in a constitution matters not. It is not what we call the piece of legislation that counts but what it says and does. In any new framework, any new legislation, there will be technical routes—institutional, political and so on—which must be followed. However, in the words of President Havel of the Czech Republic, such technical efforts,
	"are doomed to failure if they do not grow out of something deeper, out of generally held values".
	The democratic strength of any new Europe will depend not so much on its institutions but more on the values they practise.
	I shall refer to two such values. First, fundamental rights. A recent commentator described the present European system as a combination of an unaccountable Commission, an undemocratic Council, a weak European Parliament and a Court of Justice with restricted powers. Pungent, but nevertheless having some accuracy. Yet the European Convention on Human Rights declares that such rights are
	"best maintained by an effective political democracy".
	In this new Europe, with its new government, how would its citizens be protected as to their rights, as between themselves and its institutions—whether they be citizens acting as individuals, through a trade union or through corporate enterprise? How would the balance be struck between them and the European government?
	The present treaty offers no solution. Article 230 is extremely restricted as to the protection that it seeks to give to individuals. Alternatively, if the European convention were to be incorporated into new European legislation, it would have the same effect as in our country. Rights would be identifiable, and remedies would be available and enforceable. We should know where we stood. What of the alternative put forward by the working group on the charter, which recommends that it should be incorporated into any new legislation? If it is so incorporated in its present form, it will merely prolong and exacerbate the democratic deficit of which all complain.
	Why? The first part of the charter basically sets out convention rights. It adds nothing. The second part deals with economic and social rights which most European countries either do not recognise in the legislation or, if they do, give it limited enforceability. So what does this second part do for our citizens in Europe? It sets out new rights against any discrimination; an unqualified right to strike; the right to social security and pensions; and the right to environmental protection. Are they rights, or, as some politicians describe them, the contents of a political document?
	In recent debates politicians have described the charter as a combination not only of rights but of freedoms and principles. As a citizen, I ask myself which are rights, which are freedoms and which are principles. What protects me? There is no answer.
	If a citizen is to be told to look at the terms of the charter within the treaty, to study the convention commentary and then to bear in mind the horizontal provisions, he or she will say these are my rights, through this tortuous route, and will reject such a system as not being in his interests.
	The charter provides no remedies. Any decent governmental relationship with the people provides for remedies as between the people and government itself. The charter is silent. There is no declaration, no judicial review, no protective measures and no compensation. Is that democracy in this new Europe? I think not. My noble friend the Minister talks of disillusion. It will surely set in if we enact rights without remedies—because that means rights with no value. So, whether in the convention or the charter, a decision should be made to protect the citizen.
	My second fundamental theme as regards rights relates to justice and home affairs. In the new convention thinking, this is called freedom, security and justice. Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
	"The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government".
	It is in the field of justice and home affairs that the people most expect that will to be reflected. They may not understand the institutions of Europe, but they do understand concepts of justice, criminal law and home affairs. Since the Tampere Council, we have developed European legislation on terrorism, cross-border crime, racism and immigration.
	It is being debated whether this sector should become the first pillar—in other words, whether it should be exempt from parliamentary scrutiny and be proposed by the Commission, determined by the Council of Ministers, often, I am sure, by political compromise, and under the new system by qualified majority voting. Is that the way our citizens would expect justice and home affairs legislation to be enacted? I think not. Surely there must be something more.
	I make some limited suggestions in this field of freedom, security and justice. Legislation from Europe at all stages should be drafted in the framework of the fundamental rights of the convention, or whatever—the values of democracy that we recognise. Any legislation should be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights or the charter, and should be certified to be so, as is done in our Parliament, by those who seek to enact it.
	There should be a defender of the people—a much more expressive description than "ombudsman"—whose job in Europe would be to check that legislation was so compliant and that it was properly drafted, comprehensible and likely to be efficient.
	There should be a citizens' audit each year in Europe as to the implementation of new legislation and its effectiveness in the field of justice and home affairs. Action on this front must be discrete and determined, not scattered. It should deal with terrorism, drugs and the trafficking of human beings. Any new system in this area must be transparent, accountable and understandable.
	It is clear that debates on the convention of Europe introduce a sense of timelessness in the minds of contributors to this debate, and I shall come to a conclusion. The values of which I have spoken should be acceptable to Europhile or Europhobe. They merely represent the basic democratic concepts which any citizen would expect to operate between himself and those who govern him. Our representatives in the convention, our government Ministers before and at the IGC, would enjoy enormous influence, and deservedly so. I invite them all to remember that disengagement by citizens should be avoided. They should always remember the words of Thomas Jefferson:
	"That government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part".

Lord Blaker: My Lords, I shall be critical of the European Union, so I shall first establish my record as a long-time supporter of a united Europe. I first became a supporter of a united Europe in the 1940s. I was inspired by Schuman and Monnet, who promoted the unification of Europe as a means of preventing another war in western Europe, especially between France and Germany. At the end of the Second World War, on mentioning which I would no doubt draw comment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, if he were present, I spent six months in hospital recovering from a war wound. That gave me time to think. It seemed to me that the most important thing one could do in life was to work towards the prevention of further wars. That is why I went into the Foreign Office and politics.
	I rejoiced when the European Coal and Steel Community was set up. My first job in the Foreign Office was on the European defence community desk concerned with the creation of a proposed European army. I regretted very much that Anthony Eden, the then Foreign Secretary, would make no move to support the project. If it had been created, it would have transformed positively the life of Europe thereafter. I deplored Anthony Eden's failure to take part in the Messina conference. We had a golden opportunity. We were so much in demand by the six nations who set up the first communities that we could have written our own treaty more or less as we wanted it. That was a tremendous mistake.
	I am no longer an expert on the European Union. Regrettably, I have not spent much time on it for quite a while. But I do believe that the objective of making impossible a major war in Europe has been successfully achieved. There have been little wars in the Balkans, which will not recur. We should no longer be concerned about a major war in Europe. We do not seem to be concerned about it; except that Helmut Kohl, unfortunately, proposed the euro with the justification that it would help to prevent a major war in Europe.
	But there is still a strong drive towards centralisation and standardisation, even though the membership of the European Union is becoming more diverse. At the same time, Europe is becoming less popular. The noble Baroness who introduced the debate referred to "disillusionment and disengagement among citizens". That is also my impression.
	It is said that the average person is unenthusiastic about Europe because it does not have a democratic structure. I do not think that people talk about that in the pubs, or that they know whether there is in Europe a democratic or non-democratic structure. It is said that hostility to Europe exists because it is too remote. I do not think that that either is talked about in the pubs. The main cause of lack of enthusiasm for the European Union is, I believe, that it is felt to be too close, because—to use the useful expression of my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell—it meddles in the nooks and crannies of the citizen's life. In the citizen's view, it meddles in an ill-informed and clumsy way. Noble Lords will have encountered many examples of that.
	I shall mention an example that affects me. I declare an interest as a farmer. The Physical Agents (Vibrations) Directive was adopted to safeguard the health of people who drill the roads using vibrating machines. I would hate to have to operate them. But the directive also affects farm tractor drivers, which is why I have an interest. It seems to ignore the fact that farm tractor drivers now drive in air-conditioned cabs with good springing and radios. Although there is very little risk to farmers' backs if they drive tractors for fairly long spells, the directive limits their driving time to seven hours in 24.
	That is crazy in this country. If the weather is suitable at harvest time, farmers must harvest for 24 hours a day because they never know whether from the next day until the next month the weather will make it impossible to harvest. The directive may be all right for countries with a stable summer climate, but not for this country. It originated in the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate of the Commission. Did they discuss it with the farming sector of the Community? It is impossible to imagine that they did; otherwise they would never have introduced it.
	How do we get these directives, which are regarded as meddling in the nooks and crannies? One factor is that for a long time there have been too many commissioners. With expansion, we now face the possibility of even more commissioners. We need a radical reduction in the number of commissioners to fewer than, or perhaps half, the number of member countries. If we have too many commissioners, they will busy themselves thinking up ideas. They are not busy enough working on worthwhile ideas. I put forward that serious suggestion. I would view with alarm any proposal to make the President of the Commission the President of Europe. I am not enthusiastic about the proposal mentioned by the Minister to strengthen the commissioners' powers of initiative. That seems to be the source of the trouble.
	When we achieve expansion, there will be 25 different democracies with different traditions, histories, cultures, languages, religions and legal codes. It is strange that, despite the prospect of increased diversity and variety among members, we are talking about an even tighter system of standardisation. That is the opposite of what we should be doing. We should be looking for something looser. I have grave doubts about the success of the European Union if, with so many diverse members, it tightens regulation.
	The Union will stretch for incredible distances in each direction—east and west, north and south, from the Baltic to Malta, from Poland to Portugal. It defies common sense to have across that area standardisation of almost everything, which seems to be the objective of many involved in the European Union. The problem of meddling in the nooks and crannies of citizens' lives is increasingly likely to affect the popularity of Europe. I want to see the European venture survive and prosper, but the Union should fundamentally rethink this problem. I doubt whether the work of the convention will lift the feeling of "disillusionment and disengagement" unless it deals with it.

Lord Owen: My Lords, the Government have a monumental task. I think they understand how difficult it will be. There is obviously a wish in the Government to go along with the single treaty. I would like it confirmed that they have not yet formally accepted it. As someone who wants to have much greater simplification and clarity, if a single treaty is possible, I would like to see it.
	But there are formidable differences to it. It was not an accident that, after all the negotiations, we came up with the pillared structure in the Maastricht Treaty, which was extremely well negotiated, and that that has stayed through both the Amsterdam and Nice negotiations. All these issues are extremely closely linked.
	I am not a lawyer, but I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said about the problems of the new European Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am immensely pleased that this Government made the European Court of Human Rights justiciable in this country, and I have long wanted it to happen. I have always wanted to find a way in which the European Community could also be a party to the treaty. But I refer to the European Community and Community treaties. There are real problems in the European Union treaty being associated with the European Convention on Human Rights, because we have agreed that the European Court of Justice will not be involved in the inter-governmental pillars, pillars II and III. We have done so for good reason. Again, I hope that the Government have not yet accepted that they will change their long-standing position. The Prime Minister has said time after time that the European Court of Justice will not be involved in pillars II and III. It is slightly involved in some aspects of pillar III, but it is not at all involved in pillar II. That becomes even more important now that defence is coming into pillar II through ESDP.
	If we accept that we should not cross that line and bring the European Court of Justice in, the European Union in its totality cannot go into the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Justice would have to go into pillar II, because it would be immediately appealed against on the grounds of incompatibility. We have to find a way of keeping the pillared structure within a single treaty.
	That brings us to the complex issue of the legal personality. Explaining their negotiations in Amsterdam, this Government proudly claimed that they had not conceded legal personality when they had made the purely practical and, I think, welcome decision to allow the European Union to undertake negotiations under Article 24. This was not a full legal personality, but it has allowed the European Union to make two agreements, both in the Balkans. Some people have said that it is partly a legal personality. The British Government's position is as clear as daylight: it is not legal personality and it has not changed the competencies.
	If we were to go to legal personality in a single treaty we would certainly have to differentiate between full legal personality and partial legal personality. That is very difficult to do in a single treaty. Some people have said that that is the key to being able to go to a single treaty. With the best will in the world, having looked at the issues, we may be driven back to believing that, although we need simplification, we cannot have a single treaty. We can incorporate a constitutional declaration in the Treaty of the European Union—I have no objection to the basic structure of the Giscard proposals as they evolve—but we still keep that as an addition to a separate European Union Treaty and we keep the European Community Treaty, which we know and understand and which has been built on for many decades, and thus keep the intergovernmental separation from the supranational.
	If we go for a single treaty, this House will have to look very carefully at it. The implications will be considerable. It is not just a form of decision-making that we separate out in the pillars; it is a structure—an intergovernmental structure on the one hand, where decisions are taken where the member states are in the last analysis responsible, and a supranational structure, where we have ceded power from this House to the Commission and rightly given considerable powers to the European Parliament to control that supranational power. The treaties explain that and makes those things clear. I believe that we will end up rationally having to defend a continuation of the two treaties, but with an overarching wording and constitutional treaty that is understandable, concise and clear and gives better understanding for the general public in all these issues.
	We then come to the question of the High Representative—Javier Solana at present. I have always wanted the position to be filled and he has done it extremely well. It is necessary to clarify his position. I cannot see any real case for a commissioner for external affairs when we have a High Representative. It is impossible to double-hat him. We should not countenance that for one moment. These are separate responsibilities. He should be given a power of initiative. I can see a case for him to be chairman of the Foreign Ministers, but that comes back to how we want the Council to be organised overall.
	I have heard people speak in favour of the proposition that the 25 or 27 heads of government should elect a person—not one of their own number—to act as Mr Europe, as President of the Council. We know that the smaller countries are utterly opposed to that. The Benelux countries have made it clear that under no circumstances will they allow that to happen. Given their integrationist position, I am surprised that they take that view. If I were a long-term integrationist, I would welcome the proposition. It has, however, grave dangers for my wish for a unique European Union with a supranational element and an intergovernmental element. I do not think this proposal will fly, but we all know that we have to grapple with the problem of the chairing or leadership of the European Council and agree on a solution to it when we go to 25 members and even beyond that. There are some serious problems. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned the veto principle. I would love it to be possible, but I find it hard to believe that it will ever be negotiated. It has worked in the UN, but there is a lot of hostility to it there and there would be a lot more hostility to bringing it into the European Union. We will have to go on with the present structure with intergovernmental unanimity.
	There is an understanding among colleagues that small countries do not exercise their powers on this issue. For a long time when there were still 15 members in the Council we lived with Greece having a very different view of many aspects of policy in the Balkans. I watched it day by day. The Greeks never pressed their luck too much, apart from on the one issue of the name of Macedonia. They lost a Foreign Secretary on the issue and had 250,000 people on the streets of Thessalonica. That issue was of vital interest to them, but on other aspects relating to the Balkans they rallied to the majority. There are mechanisms in the CFSP for rallying to the majority and being able to declare your position. We have a lot of useful working procedures that deal with that.
	I also value the idea that the presidency of the Council rotates. Member states can identify with it. If there is a strong feeling that they need a leader, it would be much better to choose one from among their members. Current Prime Ministers or Presidents would know when somebody was in a secure position and had three or four years before an election. They would know whether that colleague's political situation meant that they could afford to give 18 months or two years to the job. That is a perfectly acceptable period. I think a year is sufficient, but six months is not. Most people agree that we must go to year-long presidencies.
	The alternative is to group countries into numbers of people and have one big country leading. There is something unique and valuable in the idea of rotating presidencies. In a group situation there is value in the six or so big countries being able to provide the leadership of the Council, and maybe the leadership of the Foreign Affairs Council would also be held by the big country in the group. With Poland coming in we now have to think of six groupings. There are four large countries. Spain is the next one, but it is the same size as Poland, so we are talking about six. We have to think imaginatively about how a group would share out chairmanship of the Councils, each having a portfolio. That is possible in a grouping. The big countries would not have them all. The presidency would be held perhaps for a year. If people were happy for longer periods of rotation, it might be 18 months or two years.
	If we decide to let the Council choose an individual as president, it will not be long before there is a great objection among the people of Europe to the post being filled by election only among the heads of government. People will then demand that it is directly elected, leading to all the problems of direct election.
	These are immensely difficult issues. Although there is an appearance of agreement, reading between the lines and seeing the way the different elements are structured, it will be difficult to pull the whole thing together, particularly in the agreed timescale. Although there has been some value in putting some people on the convention from Cabinets, there is a danger of blurring the distinction. The final response and deal must be between heads of government. However, they cannot go through a Nice procedure on this issue. We cannot have this cobbled up in the middle of the night with no redress available, and such compromises never returning to this House. This is about a constitution; in other words, something that will last. This time we must say in this House, "In no way are we having this".
	We are talking about a legislative process that we must go through painfully and slowly watching it and concentrating on the detail, such as the commas and the small print. This House must assert itself, not just along party lines; we must simply say that we are not putting up with this. Everyone agrees that Nice was a disaster in terms of procedure. We must take our time over this process.
	There is now pressure building up for the idea that the IGC should take place during the Italian presidency. I understand that the latter would like to have the second Treaty of Rome, but I do not believe that that is possible to take the proposals from the convention at the end of June and put forward a completely agreed procedure—one that is satisfactory to legislators—by the end of December in a country that is conceding a very big concession. We have never before had a written constitution, but now we are to have one.
	I have two final points to make. We need to consider whether we ought to have a constitutional court along the lines of the one in Germany. France, too, has such a court to some extent with its Conseil constitutionel, as is the case with other countries. If we are going for a written constitution, I should like us to consider the concept of a constitutional court.
	Everyone has put forward frightfully sensible proposals for discussions, and so on, on the subject of subsidiarity. But we all know that that is no use: the concept has to have power and a political mechanism. It is my suggestion when we have been consulted on the issue and do not like it, the Commission should have to take it back and reconsider the proposal because a "national parliament" has objected to it. We must have some mechanism after that. I suggest that one-third of the national parliaments should be involved. If one third of the national parliaments object to a proposal on grounds of subsidiarity and because they do not believe that this area of policy should be taken on by the Commission, the latter can still put it to the Council, but if a third of national parliaments still object they should then be able to demand that such a proposition goes through the Council by unanimity. That would give some real power to national parliaments. It would also link us into the process.
	It is no use relying on the European Court of Justice because it has not ruled on any issue of subsidiarity. It considers this to be political. It is an interesting aspect for such a body, which some of us believe to be a highly political court, to be deciding that such a concept is political. But it will not be the arbiters on this subject. But if one-third of the national parliaments object to the proposal on the grounds of subsidiarity, I suggest that the decision should then be unanimous in the Council and not dealt with by way of a qualified majority vote.
	I have outlined just some of my ideas, and I do not wish to proceed any further. The Government face a most difficult issue. Although I believe that they are approaching it in the right way, we need to have more detailed debates on some of the complex questions involved.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, to make any worthwhile comment on the proposals put forward by the Convention on the Future of Europe, I believe that we need to look at the history—to see how the people of this country have been misled over the past 30 years. I could say "lied to", but I shall instead use the word "misled" because, after all, a rose,
	"By any other name would smell as sweet".
	The people of this country have been misled, and gradually, inexorably, drawn step by step into the quicksand of a European super state, without ever being asked whether this is the road down which they wish to travel.
	The misleading began in 1973 when Mr Heath assured Parliament and the people of this country that ratifying the Treaty of Accession would mean no loss of essential sovereignty. Mr. Wilson manfully carried on the misleading in 1975 when he called the referendum on our membership of the Common Market. Again, were told that there would be no loss of sovereignty, no danger of losing the pound sterling, and that the Common Market was just that—a trading area with no political ramifications.
	Since then a succession of treaties—the Single European Act, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice—have led us down the integrationist track, while our politicians have continued to pretend that what was happening was not really happening at all and while the British public were passengers on the train without ever being asked whether or not they wanted a ticket.
	So where has this deliberately insidious process, this salami-slicing of our liberty, left us? Where are we now? I remind your Lordships again that the European Union, which we only agreed to join as a common market, already has its own parliament, its own executive, its own supreme court, its own currency, its own flag, and its own anthem. EU law is supreme: Parliament must enact any laws that have been agreed by the Council of Ministers even if the British Government voted against that law in the Council; in other words, it must enact that law on pain of unlimited fine in the Luxembourg court.
	Our fishing industry all but disappeared on the first day of this year—the shameful result of Mr Heath and the Foreign Office agreeing that British fishing and fishermen were expendable in the greater interests of joining the Common Market. Our farming industry is in danger of going the same way after 25 years in the CAP. All this, after British taxpayers have contributed hundreds of billions of pounds to the unaccountable and unelected Brussels bureaucracy to squander, mostly on helping prop up our competitors.
	Meanwhile, our industrial and intellectual competitiveness has been eroded by the stream of directives and regulations emanating from Brussels in the name of Euro- harmonisation. Under this Government and their love affair with the EU, Britain has slipped from fourth in the international competitive league to 12th now.
	So far, so bad—but worse, much worse, is to come. If the proposals of the convention are to be taken at face value, the future of this country is nothing more than European federalism. The paperwork that I was sent by our excellent research department in the House of Lords weighed eight pounds 10 ounces, which is about the weight of a good healthy baby. How wonderfully typical it is of the way that the EU operates that this Euro-baby should have as midwives a triumvirate of federalists led by a president with a reputation tarnished by his association with the unsavoury President Bokassa.
	Unsurprisingly, under such a triumvirate, the proposals that are emerging are unequivocally integrationist and federalist, even if less extravagant than the naked power-grab put forward by the European Commission, which demands that Brussels should have the power to intervene with force in the domestic affairs of member states. Have we really come to this? It gives me no comfort that the Foreign Office has rubbished this proposal. This Government and the Foreign Office have a track record that inspires little confidence. We were repeatedly told that the Government were not in favour of a written constitution, but apparently they are now in favour of it. We were told that they were not in favour of formalising the European charter of fundamental rights—the very document that, as we have heard, a government Minister, Mr Keith Vaz, said had no more value than a comic. Yet it seems that the charter is now to be stuffed down our throats. Government denials are clearly to be taken with truckloads of salt.
	The way power is shifting in the European Union can clearly be seen from the outline constitution. Article 1 of the draft requires the European states,
	"while retaining their national identities"—
	presumably that means being allowed to play the national anthem at football matches—
	"to closely co-ordinate their policies at the European level and administer certain common competencies on a federal basis".
	Article 4 requires explicit recognition of the legal personality of the Union.
	Article 5 proposes to embed the European charter of fundamental rights into the constitution. Article 8 establishes the primacy of EU law over laws of nation states, and in the glib Eurospeak with which we have become all to familiar it sets out the obligation of "loyal co-operation" of member states vis-a-vis the Union. And so on—a litany of centralising measures, with the sole aim of creating a United States of Europe, which, after all, is Mr Giscard's favoured term for his federal love child.
	There is a passing reference to "subsidiarity"—a concept which, as has been made clear today, no one understands. Lip-service is also paid to an enhanced role for national parliaments, but, as one of my noble friends pointed out, that is a mere fig leaf. We should not be too grateful for that, any more than someone who has been mugged should be grateful to a mugger for giving him the Tube fare home.
	I would expect a British Prime Minister, who has Britain's interests at heart, to resist this federalist nonsense. But, no. In a revealing speech at Cardiff, to which reference has been made by many speakers, Mr Blair amazingly said that,
	"we need more Europe, not less".
	He must be the only person in the country who really believes that. He wants a written constitution. He wants more power given to EU institutions—the Council, the Court, the Parliament, and even that sunset home for political failures, the Commission. That power has to come from somewhere. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, that this is not a zero-sum game. The power that is given to the centre has to come from the nation states.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, asks for some suggestions for his committees in Brussels. I ask him the following questions. Where are the proposals to reduce the powers of the unelected centre? Where are the proposals to return power and competencies to the nation states where they belong? There are no such proposals. Where is it proposed to cut the Commission down to size, to remove its right to initiate legislation? Why should the Commission have this power when it has no democratic mandate whatever? As my noble friend Lord Lamont pointed out, the Commission wants more power, not less.
	Where are the proposals to reduce the EU budget to a manageable size by returning agricultural and environmental policy to the nation states? Where are the proposals to reverse the devastation caused to our fisheries and marine environment by repatriating the common fisheries policy? Above all, where are the proposals for a referendum on this federalist agenda, which is anti-democratic, anti-parliamentary and anti-British? Scotland was given a referendum on devolution, as was Wales. Even London was allowed a referendum on electing the disastrous Mayor whom it saw fit to elect.
	This so-called debate on "the future of Europe" is a sham: it is merely the Euro-elites talking to each other. They ritually complain about the "democratic deficit" but show absolutely no appetite for making the fundamental changes that are necessary. Voters will have no more influence over the Council or the Commission than they have now, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, pointed out. The influence which they have at the moment is absolutely zero, and it is not going to improve.
	I remind Mr Blair of Winston Churchill's words in 1953 when he said:
	"We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are associated but not absorbed".
	Who is right, Mr Blair or Mr Churchill? We will very soon have to choose.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am not one of those who believed that the convention was going to be a weak-joke sort of organisation. Indeed, it has become, as some of us predicted, a cover for ceding more power to the institutions of the European Union and for taking further giant steps towards a united states of Europe. That is what it has become under the leadership of Mr Giscard d'Estaing.
	It is 30 years since we joined the Common Market. I and many others were opposed to joining because we knew even then that it was not about a free trade area, but about the creation of a European superstate. Because we warned that it was not about a free trade area but about building a united states of Europe, we have for a very long time been vilified, insulted, and labelled as extremists and lunatics. Nevertheless, that was my view then, and it is my view now.
	Now, however, we have been vindicated, have we not? Mr Giscard d'Estaing has blown the gaffe. His preliminary draft constitutional treaty lays down a scheme for administering the European Union on a federal basis. That is what he said—on a federal basis. One of the names that he suggests for this federal state is the united states of Europe. So we have been right all along to warn that we were headed for a united states of Europe. Now, Mr d'Estaing confirms that we were right all the way along.
	What does this scheme involve? It involves a written constitution based on a charter of fundamental rights—which, as has been mentioned, was derided in 2001 by Keith Vaz as having no more significance than the Beano. This charter of fundamental rights, which is to become the written constitution, purports to grant rights which we already have without any charter. However, the charter may well put those rights at risk and lead to their withdrawal. If something can be included in a charter, it can be excluded from the charter. Furthermore, it undermines our own flexible constitution. I do not know what on earth will happen to our own constitution. It would be interesting to have the Minister's views on that.
	The scheme is also to give us dual citizenship. Does that mean that we have two loyalties—one to the Queen and one to his presidency? Just exactly what does "dual citizenship" mean, and which loyalty will take precedence? We ought to have answers to these questions. Article 8 refers to the loyal co-operation of member states vis-a-vis the Union. Is that to override loyalty to their nation and those in their nation who elected them? There are some very serious questions to be answered.
	This united states of Europe is to be given a legal personality and the right to sign treaties without ratification. Currently, Parliament has to ratify all treaties. Under the proposals, however, it will not be necessary to ratify treaties made on our behalf by the European Union or whatever it is going to be called. The Union will also represent nations internationally by having its own diplomatic representatives and claiming seats on international bodies. If it has its own legal personality, then the European Union will have the status of a state and will be internationally recognised as one. That is bound to diminish the status and role of the nation states within it. Coupled with that, and to facilitate the creation of a single European state, the second and third pillars are to be collapsed into a single entity. Make no mistake about it: that is what it says in Giscard d'Estaing's scheme.
	The Prime Minister is suggesting the reduction of veto power, which is bound to lead eventually to decisions on foreign and defence policy being made by QMV, as is currently happening in the case of justice and home affairs and policing. A further proposal is to end the system of the rotating presidency of the European Council and to replace it with a president elected every five years by the Council itself. This president would speak and act for the Union and—in the words of at least one British Minister—would be a strong and authoritative voice speaking for the Union. That sounds good. However, it can only diminish the voice and the role of national leaders. I believe that that is exactly what is intended by the superstate builders.
	The Union's finance is also under review. According to the Giscard draft, the Union budget is to be fully financed by its own resources. That might not be considered to be anything other than the present position, except, of course, that our dear friend the President of the Commission, Signor Prodi, and others, are calling for the European Union to have power to levy taxes, direct and indirect.
	Now, of course, as we have already heard, there is the sop of subsidiarity. How I distrust that word. I remember the Maastricht Treaty when John Major said, "We have subsidiarity. We have won it, game, set and match". What has happened since? Far from there being any subsidiarity and far from any competences being returned to the nation states, the competences ceded to the centre have grown and grown and grown every single year. So when I hear the word "subsidiarity" I become very suspicious indeed. Make no mistake, there will not be any subsidiarity and no ceding of powers back to the nation states.
	At the time of the Nice Treaty signing our own government pooh-poohed the idea that any of these proposals were serious, yet they have now embraced them all. Blair's speech in Cardiff on 28th November, which has been referred to on several occasions this afternoon, was about Europe and support for continued and increased integration. I was struck by a sentence in that speech which I quote,
	"And with each new direction taken, Britain has tended to say this far and no further. Then on the next development we say the same. And so on".
	That is what worries many of us. There seems to be no end to integration. And if that is so, Britain will be integrated out of existence. That must be so, if there is no end to it. So, we are entitled to ask Mr Blair, who says that he is "a British patriot", if he has a sticking point to integration and, if he has, where and what it is.
	In that Cardiff speech Mr Blair also repeated his Warsaw dictum that he wants Europe to be a superpower and not a superstate. But you cannot be a superpower without being a superstate. Mr Blair must know that you cannot be a superpower without the means, and the means can only be through a superstate. The Giscard draft and other proposals before the convention are further steps towards the creation of that superstate. I believe that the people of this country simply do not want that.
	Finally, what we really need in this country is not a convention on the future of Europe. We need a convention in which all the people are involved. We need a convention on the future of Britain. That is what the people of this country want.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to peer into the future of Europe. I believe that the issues we are discussing today affect not only those of us who live and work in Europe but the rest of the world as well. I think in particular of those parts of the world where there is a strong European heritage, such as the Americas. But any developments in, and evolution of, the European Union are of interest in all those regions where countries are attempting to link their needs, economies and destinies and follow the model of the European Union in doing so.
	It has been said that this is really the first time in our history when the whole scope, purpose and direction of the European Union are subject to debate not just in your Lordships' House but also in the many communities, organisations and groups who recognise that the drawing up of a convention or treaty on the future of Europe presents an opportunity for change, improvement, simplification and clarification.
	As many of your Lordships know, I served as a member of the European Parliament after the first direct elections in 1979. Subsequently as a Minister I represented my department at the appropriate Council of Ministers meetings. Those meetings took place behind closed doors. I confess that the opportunity for full and frank discussion that that system allowed enabled business to be dispatched more effectively and speedily than might otherwise have been the case if the meetings had been conducted under the public gaze. I hope that the greater openness in Council, to which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, referred, will not make procedures more cumbersome and debate more restricted. To complete my declaration of interests, I am currently a member of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe.
	I wish to concentrate my remarks on cultural heritage issues and in particular on the role of religion. But I cannot resist picking up briefly some other issues which have been raised in the course of the debate. First and foremost, the role of the European Union in trade is incontrovertible. But if it is to play a leading role in the development of a global trade policy, it must get its own house in order. I refer, of course, to the common agricultural policy but there are other examples.
	Secondly, I refer to social policy. In my view any treaty which will have a long-term impact on the people of Europe should include broad social objectives. The danger lies in attempting to go into too much policy detail. I hope that that will be resisted. The principle of subsidiarity has been developed by various speakers and is, I believe, in great need of better application. I was interested in the novel suggestion to use the principle of subsidiarity in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Owen. But I believe that it should be applied not only as between national authorities and the European Union but also as between the European Union and other international organisations. I refer particularly to the conflict that sometimes arises between the work of the European Union and the Council of Europe. But, for example, the OECD, the WTO and, indeed, the United Nations are all institutions with which there is a risk of overlap and duplication.
	In the application of the rule of subsidiarity—that is, that power should be devolved to the level closest to the citizen—the example of the relationship between the European Union and the Council of Europe is an important one. The Council of Europe now has some 44 member states from Portugal to Azerbaijan and from Iceland in the north to Turkey in the south. All European Union members and, indeed, the current applicants for membership, are also members of the Council of Europe. Historically, the Council of Europe has been the champion and the guardian of human rights, cultural heritage and educational issues. There is no need, therefore, for the European Union to take over that role. I trust that any underlining of the importance of those matters in the convention will not impinge on the work already being carried out by the Council of Europe.
	That leads me to my main theme: the importance of culture and heritage; the recognition of its diversity and the need for us all to respect and understand not only our own national inheritance but also the inheritance of others, even and perhaps especially if that leads to a different approach or way of doing things.
	I know that the European Union has committed itself to working towards the development of an open and diverse cultural area shared by the peoples of Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and the promotion of a legal framework favouring cultural activities and guaranteeing respect for cultural diversity. That is excellent, provided that this commitment operates, in effect, as a cross-curricular theme.
	It has been suggested, according to the most recent progress reports from our national Parliament representative, that all budgets devoted to the promotion of European culture and heritage should be transferred to the Council of Europe. I agree with that.
	One particular aspect of our cultural heritage is of great concern to many people, and has already been introduced as a theme in this debate by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans. I refer to the place and role of the Churches in religious communities. If a future constitutional treaty, designed to guide the European Union through the next decades, made no reference to religion, Churches or religious communities, it would create a vacuum, given their real significance to society as a whole, to the values and identities on which society is based and to the Union's relationship to its citizens.
	It is true that there is reference to religion in some treaty provisions, annex protocols and declarations and in secondary legislation, in areas such as non-discrimination, labour law, co-operation and development, to name but a few. I would hope to see those references reinforced in the future convention on the basis of a cross-curricular theme. We might go even further—and again, I rely on the excellent exposition made by the right reverend Prelate. Perhaps it would be possible to introduce into the preamble to the convention an explicit reference to God and to the religious heritage of Europe as essential elements of European identity and a reference point for many citizens of the European Union.
	In order to avoid such a reference being exclusive, I suggest that the example of the Polish constitution could be followed. As I understand it, that document refers:
	"both to those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, goodness and beauty as well as to those not sharing such faith but respecting those universal values".
	That is a very neat solution to the proposition that I am making.
	I hope that what I have said gives the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, some food for thought, although I am one of those who was able to have a word with him on the subject—in the corridor, I hasten to add, not in the Bishops' room. I hope that it will also serve to put some meat on the bones of the skeleton draft treaty to which the Minister referred.

Lord Judd: My Lords, at the outset I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart. In my time in the Foreign Office as a Minister, I had responsibilities for the European Community. I remember vividly the role played by the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and the imagination, drive and spirit that he brought to it. Not to have him participate in a debate on Europe leaves a huge gap in our deliberations.
	I should also like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, with whom I work closely in the Council of Europe, to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, and to my noble friend Lord Grenfell for all that they have done to make this debate necessary and important. We should not take for granted the amount of work that people such as my noble friend Lord Tomlinson are putting into this matter. As a close friend, I know how many hours, days and weeks he is giving of his own time, on our behalf, to ensure that the outcome of the convention is along the right lines.
	I sometimes wonder whether people are imaginative and brave enough in these exercises. One big issue that I should have liked to see faced is the composition of the European Parliament. I believe that what we have learned by looking at it objectively over the years is that we have ended up with a mess. We have a European Parliament that is, inevitably, remote from the people. When elections take place, they are seldom about European issues. They serve as a litmus test for the popularity of the government of the day. The number of people voting is disturbingly small. Our national parliaments have almost a vested interest in demonstrating their identity and separateness from all that is happening in Europe. I wish that we could revisit the issue of whether it would have been better to have an indirectly elected European Parliament in which there was an automatic and integrated link between politicians nearer to their communities in nation states and politicians working at the issues at the European level.
	We live in a time of managerialism. There is always a danger that in our managerial preoccupations we forget what we are managing for. History would judge us harshly if it appeared that we, as politicians, became caught up in constitutional preoccupations before we spelt out clearly enough to the people of our country why the constitution was necessary and why the developments were essential. What are the challenges that face us that make Europe and European institutions so vital?
	I wish to dwell on one aspect. It seems to me that the starting point in relevant politics is the recognition of total global interdependence. That is where I profoundly differ from my very good personal friend, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. To use the language that he used is to mislead the public about the reality of the world in which we live. Let me spell it out: the economy, the environment, health, trade—not one of those issues can any longer be satisfactorily solved on behalf of our people in the national context alone. They all demand international co-operation and an interdependent approach. That is where the institutions of Europe become important.
	There is a paradox here, however. If one accepts that argument, the European Union itself is not sufficient. My noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, in her interesting introduction, dwelt on migration and immigration. There is no way that we will solve those problems within the European Union itself; we have to get it right with the countries around the European Union.
	What worries me in that context is that in expanding the Union, which I favour, there is a danger that the dividing line between those who are part of the European Community and those who are outside it becomes more, not less, significant. I hope that the convention's work will deal with how we can ensure that the wider Europe has an opportunity, all the time, to relate and become involved in relevant European policies when they make sense and are essential. I am not sure that that is a priority, from what I see of our immediate preoccupations.
	I refer only to one country in that regard, because it would be remiss of me to make this observation without mentioning it. The role of Russia is central to the European Union. If we are to have a sound and stable world, we must enable Russia to become a full, positive and responsible part of the management of world affairs. If we take the developments in the European Union seriously, we must consider how we can make it more possible for Russia to co-operate, rather than introducing greater structural difficulties.
	It is not only to Europe that one must refer in the context of interdependency. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, with whom I work closely in the Council of Europe, has made that point well. We must consider not only the wider Europe but the wider international community. On that issue, we come to how the convention's work examines how the strengthened European Union will relate to, as one example, the international financial institutions and, as another, the UN system as a whole.
	One of the most crucial areas of interdependence is security. As we have now all come to terms with the appalling threat of international terrorism with which we live, security is more powerfully important than ever. We have recognised that we cannot talk about a common foreign policy in the European Union if we are not also talking about a common security policy, because they are two sides of the same coin. My noble friend Lady Scotland said in her introduction that the matter had to be handled with an intergovernmental approach. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, made the same points.
	If the development of policy on the subject were to become intergovernmental within the European Union, I would be concerned as to where effective parliamentary scrutiny took place. We would not simply be scrutinising an aggregate of several individual parliaments' approaches to a particular challenge, threat or problem that might be confronting us, but the policy evolving between the governments. Who would scrutinise that development in a common foreign and security policy, and where?
	Most of us would agree that the story of the Western European Union parliamentary assembly does not grip noble Lords immediately with a sense of irresistible excitement and relevance, and that may sadly be true. On the other hand, theoretically it was a body of people with the job of scrutinising a common approach to defence on a European basis. Where will such scrutiny take place?
	That brings us back to my earlier point on a wider Europe. One thing very much to the credit of the Western European Union and its parliamentary assembly was that it put great emphasis on ensuring that European states from outside the WEU were present at and participated in its debate. Therefore, there was recognition of a need for a wider base for integration on international security. If one were to have that wider approach, one could not simply limit discussions and evaluations to the members of the WEU, as there would have to be a wider forum of concern. Where is that subject examined and taken seriously in the convention as it goes about its work?
	The subject quickly takes us again to the United Nations and the Security Council. We need some clear indications fairly rapidly about the thinking of our Government on the issue. Is there to be a permanent seat for the European Union? What does that mean for the permanent seats of the United Kingdom and France? We cannot just leave that matter to resolve itself. We need clear analysis about it, and we need to face up to the issues involved.
	I make two points in conclusion. In this age of interdependence and in view of the threat of global terrorism and the rest—I referred to those issues—we are all preoccupied with debates about the importance of the international rule of law. We must take seriously a point that has emerged in the context of the Council of Europe about the European conventions. If we tried to introduce new commitments and conventions that were limited to the European Union, that would be a retrograde step if it undermined the battle to win hearts and minds, in terms of commitment to the conventions, in the global community and the wider European community as a whole. We must consider that seriously. Building the European Union and its culture must not be done at the expense of weakening the global and wider European commitment to the same principles.
	I am absolutely certain that the way in which history and public opinion judge the interesting work being done by the convention will involve not simply the quality of the design for the constitution, which is immensely important, but also how far what is being done meets the challenges that everyone knows are there. How relevant will the institution be to the real issues facing humanity? In that regard, we need more leadership rather than simply discussing who will chair this, who will be president of that, and how we should elect the leader for this or that task. For what purpose are we doing all of that? Unless we can capture the public imagination in that regard, we will not have much public identification with what we are trying to do constitutionally.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, having heard the opening remarks in the stirring speech of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I feel that I must now declare an interest: I am one of his representatives in the European Parliament. While I am not allowed to refer to him as a noble friend here, in a better part of England I can refer to him as my Cumbrian friend.
	I very much welcome this debate because it is important. It is important because the convention will have a significant impact on the future of Europe and hence on the future of Britain. It will set the political terms of the agenda for the next IGC. At the outset of the process, I was not at all sure about that, but I am now. I say that not least because it is chaired by M Giscard. I do not believe that M Giscard wants his political career to end in bathos. He is, I believe, fully aware that he is one of the successors of Louis XIV.
	In my very small political experience, one of the greatest problems about European Union politics is that there is a general unwillingness to differentiate between policy and how policy is made. That does not really cut across the domestic political agenda in the same way. After all, few people argue for the abolition of Westminster because from time to time it produces conclusions with which they are unhappy; nor do they rubbish its decisions because of the way that it is put together or the way that it works. In the case of Europe, that distinction appears to get lost. I believe that when we debate the convention we should keep that in mind. After all, while much of what the convention does concerns policy, most of my remarks will not concentrate on that; most of them will relate to process. That, of course, is not to say that I in any way undermine or wish to denigrate the importance of the policy aspect of what is involved.
	Equally in this context, words are a problem. For example, as everyone involved in this field knows, the word "federalism" means one thing to an audience of German Lander and something different to readers of the Daily Mail, and difficulties arise if both groups happen to be in the same audience at the same time. But it is absolutely clear that Europe needs a constitutional framework, which could be described as a "constitution" if that is how one wished to express it. It may come as a slight surprise to noble Lords to hear a hereditary Conservative Peer claim as an authority a leader of the Chinese communist party. However, I believe that Chairman Deng Xiaoping got it right when he said:
	"It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice".
	In my view, basically the present structure of the treaties, which, after all, are the constitutional framework of the European Union, are disgraceful. One needs to have a law degree or something equivalent to be able to find one's way around. If one wishes to bring Europe to the people—whatever exactly that might mean—one can do no better than to start there. In addition, I strongly believe that we need to come to some kind of settlement of the state of permanent constitutional revolution that seems to exist at present in European politics.
	While the report is excellent, there is one respect in which I do not believe that it is quite right—that is, in paragraph 4, which states:
	"The establishment of the Convention is a deliberate move to win back public confidence, and reflects the realisation that the European public must be brought onboard for further widening and deepening of the Union to be successful".
	I consider the convention to be something different. I believe that it has been a successful manoeuvre by two parts of the political elite, who have been excluded from the process of determining political change in Europe—that is, the national parliaments and the European Parliament.
	I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that the problem in relation to Europe is not a lack of information. In my experience as an elected politician, which, for obvious reasons—at least, up until now—has been outside Westminster, I have found that there are plenty of calls for information to be provided about Europe. But when, for example, one organises a seminar about it, absolutely no one turns up. I believe that there is an important paradox at the heart of that. The British people do not much like the European Union and they do not much like the way that it takes decisions. However, they do like the kind of world that the Union and such decisions have helped to create.
	It seems to me that if one considers the matter from a slightly different perspective, the convention is a concept which is far less alien to politicians in other member states than it is to those in this country. In fact, it is an evolutionary political development which has come into being to deal with the various parliaments' wish for greater involvement in the process of political change. It has now become part of the political system of Europe, even if it is not now part of its constitutional order.
	I believe that the reason that it has acquired that position is partly because of pressure from parliamentarians and partly because of the personality and achievements of those who lead it. After all, I am an admirer of M Giscard, and even if one is not, one has to concede that he is a considerable figure. I do not know Signor Amato, but Mr Dehaene is clearly a substantial, heavyweight personality, as is Sir John Kerr, although perhaps less so in the physical sense.
	Against such a background, it behoves us to take seriously what is going on. That is true whether one looks at the issue from a party, a parliamentary or a national perspective. If we engage effectively, we can do things; if we fail to do that, we shall simply not have any impact.
	In turn, for anyone who is involved and working in a European context, it seems that it must follow that one must work within the networks and the systems that surround the European political process. For as long as we are part of Europe, we must work those systems in order to maximise our own effectiveness.
	Contrary to what is sometimes supposed, I do not believe that the evolution of European political parties, which are far looser coalitions than the national counterparts of which they are made, is in itself a conspiracy to drive forward a centralised European political agenda. It is an entirely logical and rational response to the way that decisions are now being taken, and governments, parliaments and political parties must position themselves advantageously. Doing so is no guarantee of achieving what one wants, but I believe that splendid isolation is a near certain guarantor of failing to obtain it.
	As far as my own party is concerned, it seems to me that we can either line up with other centre-Right parties of government and handle the differences between us, which on occasions can be significant—if we do that we are put in the loop as a party of government—or stand alone defiant and patriotic, shrilly proclaiming intellectual and ideological purity, which gets one nowhere.
	In a world where for better or worse—I happen to think it is for worse—something like 50 per cent of our legislation owes its origin to Europe, it hardly seems to me to be a real or effective way of furthering our national interests to stand aside from what is going on. In the kind of world in which we now live it is simply not a credible approach to effective government, which is the ambition of mainstream political parties. What is more, I believe that that would be recognised by the public as not being a credible approach.
	Equally, those of us in the British Parliament must engage with other national parliamentarians in securing what we seek and, indeed, I believe that we should aim to take a lead. Certainly, the idea of parliamentary involvement in scrutinising the application of the principle of subsidiarity is now fashionable in a way it was not when my noble friend Lord Kingsland led the United Kingdom Conservatives in the European Parliament and I was his Chief Whip and legal spokesman some 10 years ago and we tried unsuccessfully to promote variations on that idea.
	Certainly, it seems to me that there is no doubt that greater parliamentary involvement in European Union affairs is called for. There is a good case for a greater inter-parliamentary component to the EU's modus operandi aligned with its intergovernmental and Community working methods.
	I feel strongly that we must ensure that each parliament be allowed to find its own best way of doing much of the work, not least because to do so accords with the principle of subsidiarity, and not to do so would be in breach of it.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, what I shall say could be regarded as the words of a Eurosceptic. However, I would claim that they are the words of a Europhiliac. I think I know quite a lot about Europe. I think I can tell your Lordships about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which established the Ukraine Catholic church; and a little about the war of the Spanish succession. I think I can tell my noble friend Lord Inglewood what happened to Louis XIV at the battles of Ramilles, Oudenarde, Blenheim and Malplaquet. I think I can say to your Lordships that I love European history and European civilisation. After all, it is the fountain of all present world civilisations and methods of trading and justice, which is not a bad record.
	I would also suggest that at the same time the United Kingdom in its various ways as a small offshore island has done quite well in that process. Interestingly, I was lucky enough and privileged enough to arrive in your Lordships' House just in time to vote for the accession treaties in 1971, which I did with enthusiasm. I have become disillusioned not with Europe but with the way that Europe functions. Funnily enough, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, summed it up brilliantly at the end of his speech. He started talking about Russia and saying, "Where do the borders of Europe end?" Russia is a European country. Therefore, surely if it fulfils the rules, it should be allowed to join the European Union. But that European Union then becomes something completely, utterly and totally different from what was originally perceived in Rome in 1959.
	We have to deal with Europe as it should be. We cannot continue having 80 per cent of our laws turned out by Europe with no democratic overview. Equally, if we have a democratic overview which stretches from Riga to Faro and from Salonika to Scunthorpe, there will be chunks of that continent who say, "We do not like that democratic decision because it has been taken by a lot of people over there with whom we have nothing in common". Surely, for the peace of Europe we have to start taking away from the central institutions in Europe the powers they have. We cannot go on legislating in detail.
	It was said by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that this arose because of the desire for France and Germany never again to go to war. I suggest that it arose not to stop France and Germany from again going to war but because they had already decided that playing soldiers on the continent was extraordinarily silly. Too many people got hurt.
	It was not the idea of the European Union that stopped the concept of Louvois sacking the Palatinate or Von Witzleben's cuirassiers charging uphill at the guns at Mar-La-Tours or Frederick the Great's Brandenburg cavalry beating up the Austrian general at Leuthen. The European Union was a consequence of France and Germany not wanting to go to war. They had had enough.
	I suggest to your Lordships that there are some things that the European Union does extremely well. I think that what the European Union did over trade when the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, was the Trade Commissioner was good. Its treaty negotiating at the World Trade Organisation was in the interests of free trade. After all, no one is going to get anything other than by the buying and selling of widgets and increasing wealth. That is the only way to do it. So that is a good thing.
	However, there are things that the European Union does quite appallingly badly. The fisheries policy is nothing short of a disgrace. The Namibians and the Norwegians can run a fisheries policy. The Icelanders have got increasing cod stocks. There have been two debates in your Lordships' House showing that the European Union is totally incapable of running a fisheries policy. There is no hope of changing it. Everyone accepts the CAP is a complete disaster but no one can do anything about it. We must try to make sure that the European Union does what it does well much better and that it does much less. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made the important point that the borders start merging into the distance. We do not want something tight and overregulated. We want something loose.
	I suggest that the greatest example of foreign policy and co-operation in Europe was in about 1815 with Talleyrand, Metternich and Castlereagh. They produced between them the system which kept Europe more or less at peace until 1870 in a time of terrific change in the 19th century. That was a very great achievement.
	However, if all this process is locked into detailed treaty-ridden pockets it will end in tears because there is no give in it. It will break. If there is no give in it, it will end in someone saying, "We are not going to do it". That will end in people being beastly and bloodshed. So, unless the European Union starts to withdraw from people's lives and to give back to Parliament and the people the things they hold dear, it will end in tears.
	I notice that the new treaty says that it is going to be very naughty to try and secede from the European Union. But I am infinitely pleased to know that if this Parliament were in its wisdom at one stage to say, "We will secede from the European Union", this Parliament has the power to do it, which no government can take away from it, because no government and no Parliament can bind its successor.
	So my warnings about the treaty process founded by Louis XIV, Giscard d'Estaing—whatever the man's name is—is that it is going to go too close, to lock everyone in and it has the possibility to end in tears.
	My argument is a philo-European argument, not an anti-European argument because I want people to be able to live in peace and concord, to buy and sell widgets to each other, to pass without let or hindrance, to be friends with each other and to be able to co-operate in the Councils of Europe in that way. That is the way forward for Europe, not this detailed continental idea of things all locked up into separate compartments.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the Green Party, of which I am a member and the views of which I regard it as my duty to represent in this House, supports the original aim of European integration, as do I. As has been mentioned several times, that original aim was to ensure that there was never again an intra-European war. Whether that would have happened anyway, without the formation of the European Union, as I think that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, just suggested, I do not know. He may well be right about that, but nevertheless that was the objective of Schumann and Monnet, the founders of the European Union.
	My party is pro-European in its hope that European nations will continue to be culturally interactive and co-operate with each other. That must happen. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was a little unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, when he suggested that what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said meant that he was unaware that countries must co-operate. Of course they must, but they do so rather better if they retain their individuality and base from which to start.
	Those are the good things about the European Union that we have supported, but we are also a devolutionary and democratic party. We do not think that the way in which the European Union is operated at present, and still less the way in which it appears to be planned to operate in future, is either democratic or seriously devolutionary. We are clear that that is the way in which this country must develop: we must be devolutionary and stay democratic.
	Those reservations have led me to the belief that Britain should leave the European Union and pursue our belief in Europeanism through the Council of Europe, on which I, too, have served, for which I have the highest regard and which I think is an admirable institution in both theory and practice. I believe that we must reach that view; I believe that my party will realise that that is the way forward; I hope that the Conservatives will be pushed back into that position sooner or later; and I think that Britain will.
	As has been said so often today, the people of Britain do not like the European Union, its effects or what it does. As was said just now, they may like the kind of world that Europe has helped to produce, but I am not certain of that. I am far from clear that the European Union has improved anything during the past 30 years. It may have done, but there is no proof of that. My party has not yet bitten that bullet and come out against membership but, when the chips are down, we, the Conservative Party and plenty of others—including, ultimately, the people of this country—will arrive at that solution.
	In a world increasingly run by corporations, this is not the time to abandon the rights and liberties of particular nations, especially when we see how the American empire appears to be ruled by the oil industry. We must fight the rule of corporations, which is thoroughly wrong and a real demonstration of the choice between God and Caesar—or, rather, Mammon, because the corporations speak for Mammon. As a nation, we are not interested in Mammon. In our time, we have been rich, and, compared to the rest of the world, we are very rich. However, although Britons tend to run a mile at the word "culture", it is, nevertheless, the culture of our country that we most prize. If we were to ask people why they liked living in England, that is one of the things that they would say.
	Like so many people, including the noble Earl who has just spoken, I am not anti-European. Our ancestors were not anti-European when they resisted Napoleon. Churchill was not anti-European when he resisted Hitler. The cases are different, I agree. There is no question now of European unity being created by force. Those attempts were based on force, but this one is not. However, the results will be the same.
	One of the results of the previous attempts would have been what is now being sought—the abolition of the nation state. It will be the end of our national individuality and our legal system, which is incompatible with that of the rest of Europe and is unique. That system may not be perfect, but it should not just be jettisoned. The point has been made by various speakers that what is best in our tradition is the general evolution of our constitution and our national character. That is how things happen in this country, and it is not to be cribbed, cabined and confined into the hutches of a restrictive and, ultimately, sterile constitution.
	I have always thought of myself as an internationalist. I still do. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was wrong to accuse some of us of not being internationalists just because we are also nationalists. The time will shortly come when we must decide whether we want the British nation to continue as an effective entity with its own ethos. I hope and believe that we will choose that it should. If it is to do so, we must oppose the plans for a new constitution for a united Europe.

The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on introducing the debate, which is linked to the recent report by the House's Select Committee on the European Union and to the Convention on the Future of Europe, which reports later this year.
	What is the purpose of a European Union of any size and at any time? How should it be structured accordingly? I shall refer to three separate, yet related, forms of security and will claim that those forms and their interaction are what planning theory and practice should seek to achieve.
	First, there is defence security and the maintenance of peace in Europe and, from there, assistance to world peace. Secondly, there is political and economic delivery towards and within the European Union's nation states. Thirdly—not least—there is the confidence and well-being of families and communities throughout European Union member states. No doubt, the common factor among the three securities is economic stability.
	By 2000, a dramatic change had occurred in European defence security. Already, by 1990, the Warsaw Pact had replaced the dogmas of Soviet communism with the aspiration of economic stability, human rights and democracy. Ten years later the former Yugoslavia embraces the same objectives while, in its case, rejecting the twin evils of national hostility and ethnic cleansing.
	While still no less of a dramatic change and contrast, it may not be too surprising that an outcome like this should follow on from the implementation of a good defence policy, if there had been one, as the fruits from its labour. However, what may be less obvious is that economic and social development levels themselves should ever form part of the means, as well as the outcome of any defence policy; let alone that they should have proved already to be the key instruments within a recent, effective European defence strategy.
	Yet, exactly that did prove to be the case between 1948 and 1989 in terms of the Cold War. The 1949 NATO Alliance could not have been formed had it not been preceded by the economic disbursement of Marshall aid in 1948.
	The Cold War would not have ended as it did in the 1980s had the arms race not come to exert an unacceptable level of pressure on the economies of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact states. Nevertheless, until 1989, and in spite of promising signs to the contrary, many of us still believed that Soviet communism would remain entrenched for a long time. It did not, and for that a huge debt is owed to the forging of the North Atlantic alliance in the first place, and to the balance achieved by its membership in terms of deterrence, diplomacy and economic stability.
	What guidance therefore can be offered by the performance of NATO from 1949 to 2000? The two different periods to be looked at should be the Cold War until 1989 and the conflict within the former Yugoslavia between 1991 and 1999. Thus, how can the successes within the first period, together with the mistakes made within the second, help us to forge a sound European defence policy now?
	NATO's strategy during the Cold War may have been both unusual and successful in three respects. First, unlike the League of Nations between the World Wars, it demonstrates how human rights can be backed up by force. Secondly, and unlike most other powers throughout history, the building up of arms for peace and containment rather than for war and aggression. And thirdly, as indicated, the agenda or philosophy shared by NATO member states: that democracy and human rights are best preserved and advanced through economic stability.
	NATO's mistakes during the conflict within the former Yugoslavia and the divisions within western defence security to which these mistakes corresponded, are often agreed to be a product of successful management during the Cold War. For 40 years, NATO's focus had been the containment of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact states, which formed its satellites. The containment of regional instability had thus not been a priority or even a necessity. As a result, NATO states distributed over the European Union, and including the United States, were unused to confronting regional instability in the 1990s, and were divided over and unsure of the best way to do so with regard to the former Yugoslavia.
	With hindsight, many of us believe that the catastrophe could have been avoided if at the outset the prescription of July 1991 of the European Union Dutch presidency had been implemented. That prescription was for two expedients. First, it was for firm and decisive action at the outset by United Nations and NATO troops to stop the fighting between Serbs and Croats. And secondly, for those troops to remain to enable the European Union to preside over an orderly secession of states from the former Yugoslavia.
	Does the Minister agree that the prescription for NATO and Europe may be fairly clear now? NATO membership should always include those states which belong to the European Union. As the Cold War proves, NATO's capacity should always be fully maintained to achieve deterrence. As the former Yugoslavia teaches, it should act quickly and decisively to deflect and deter crises of all kinds in their early stages and before they take hold.
	My second theme is the desired aim of consistent political and economic delivery within the larger European Union. No doubt a useful background to that is offered by the concept of subsidiarity. If that concept emphasises what nation states should deal with on their own, so that the European Union in other respects can provide added value, it also implies a corollary. This is that the areas where the European Union does affect member states can even assist as a parallel added value in an improved form of delivery by national governments and parliaments over their own affairs.
	In this context, I should like to mention three aspects. First, the new role of the national parliaments as this might come to be devised within the wider European Union. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, reported progress in this endeavour. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, emphasised the importance that the contributions of national parliamentarians should be ex ante.
	Secondly, there is the related case, apart from and in addition to that for a council of national parliamentarians, for much improved parliamentary scrutiny by national parliaments of their own governments' European policies. Thirdly, and as indicated, there is the healthy prospect that if national parliaments really do start to scrutinise European policies and proposed legislation properly, through habit and practice they will also become much better at checking and influencing their own governments and executives over their own national affairs. Does the Minister agree that these aspects can and should now be connected together? If so, what steps will the Government take to consolidate further the role of national parliaments over proposed European legislation? How do they propose to encourage among European Union states much more national parliamentary scrutiny over their own governments' European and national policies in order to assist an improved level of European democracy?
	The third theme is confidence and well-being affecting families and communities throughout European member states. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans warned against a narrowly focused attention to material delivery alone. And there is a risk that within the new wider European Union, political and economic delivery will improve while the confidence of families and communities may not do so commensurately. Yet this inconsistency, if it should obtain, may not so much reveal an obsession with material resources; rather more, perhaps, it will reflect an ineptitude in handling them. Not least is that so since, as already indicated, it is the professed conviction of all our states that human rights and well-being are best preserved and advanced through economic stability in the first place. Not least does the challenge from communities come from problems of young people and from those of them who, as a result of difficulties at home and with school learning, require to be deterred, guided and inspired into constructive purpose and away from crime.
	Does the Minister accept that those and related matters are best addressed through the attainment of much improved practice and by the examples set to each other by different European Union states? If so, through corporate responsibility, partnership and initiative within both the public and private sectors, what planning and action will the Government embark upon to set our own standards for the benefit of others within a wider European Union? In another context, the Government should be congratulated on the good example they have set through the ready response and welcome given to all those who will form part of the mobility of labour when the new states come in.
	In summary, as we approach the wider European Union we should do so much more with thoughts of simple values than with those of administrative complexities. And when the wider European Union comes into being, it will be a triumph for peace, for our history and for humanity.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been a useful, important and long overdue debate. I was sorry that my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston was unable to take part in the debate. He was a little unwell today and wanted to ensure that he was better in time for the debate that he will lead tomorrow.
	We have heard a range of opinions and I want to begin by taking issue with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, on his knowledge of European history. He is not now in his place, but some of us are aware that like him we can trot out the battles that the British won during the war of the Spanish succession. I remember once attending a meeting of COSAC—that dreadful exercise of the conference of European scrutiny committees of national parliaments—in Versailles where in the Chambre de Batailles we were able to see a wonderful panorama of all the battles which the French won in European history, starting in, I believe, 549 and ending for some reason in 1813. Most of these were battles which the British, German, Spanish and Italian representatives did not know about. So we may believe that we are European but we all have our different perspectives on what we think European history is about.
	In his new year message, as I understand it, the Prime Minister said that in the long run the convention on the European Union may prove to be much more important to the future of Britain than the decision on whether to go to war with Iraq. That is an important and weighty statement. If that is so, it is quite extraordinary that Her Majesty's Government have been so reluctant to encourage an informed public debate within Britain so far. The Government have shown the same level of enthusiasm for persuading the British public of the case for a simplified European constitution as they have shown for persuading them to join the euro—old patterns which, sadly, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, recur under both Conservative and Labour governments.
	The Government start by saying that it is not terribly important—only a tidying up exercise. They then run scared of the Daily Mail, The Times and the Telegraph and slip into the kind of language that we have heard from Ministers in the past two months, that "We are winning the argument". The next stage is that they have to explain why they have not won the argument after all because the Franco-German paper has suggested a number of other things without the British Government attempting to conduct intelligent discussions at different levels with our French, German and other partners. This leaves the British public, in the end, confused, suspicious and suspecting, yet again, a conspiracy hatched behind closed doors of the kind of which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, again reminded us.
	It is now 10 months since the convention opened; six months since your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Union published its report; there has been no government publication of which I am aware. In spite of the demands that many of us have made on a number of occasions, there has been no Green Paper to set out the Government's approach and to focus the attention of the public and Parliament. The British Government have made a number of proposals in the convention—which, with some difficulty, Members of this House and another place have been able to obtain—and, oddly enough, they seem to have focused their small efforts on informing the Welsh. The Prime Minister gave a useful speech in Cardiff; the Secretary of State for Wales attends the convention and reports back occasionally to his constituents. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, reminded us, it is after all an English constitution and perhaps the English, the Scots and the Northern Irish would like to be a little better informed as well.
	The convention is well over half-way through its proceedings and most working group reports have been published. It is time for the Government to be more active, both at home and in relation to other governments, at the highest level outside the convention as well as inside. It is a major failing of the Government that they have not spent more effort, first, in informing the British public and their own Parliament, and, secondly, in operating government to government with their partners in the European Union outside the convention to ensure that the ideas that we float are shared with other governments.
	There have been two major British initiatives so far, neither of which seems fully thought through. The first was a proposal for a long-term president of the Council, which aroused fears among all the smaller states of a directoire of the big countries. The second was the idea of a greater role for national parliaments, an additional European chamber, which was floated by the Prime Minister without consulting any of those who had been to COSAC, without consulting Parliament at all and without a full explanation of how it would work in practice.
	I remember the cynical remark of, I think, a German politician, that it was odd that the two Governments within the European Union which had the weakest national parliaments, those with the least accountability over their Executives—the British and the French—should be the ones that have put the most effort into saying that the role of national parliaments has to be strengthened in the European Union. It is of course remarkable and a shame that the Government, who have marked this past year by saying that the role of national parliaments has to be strengthened, have not attempted to engage either Chamber in the early stages of this convention.
	I welcome the report of the Working Group on National Parliaments, which overlaps in its conclusions with the report of the European Union Committee of this House on scrutiny. Both of these require a response from Her Majesty's Government and a full debate. We need to discuss pre-scrutiny of the Council agenda, of the kind that some other national parliaments undertake. Some kind of Joint Committee of both Houses, or a Joint Committee consisting of the chairs of various committees and sub-committees in both Houses, to meet Ministers ahead of each Council would be worth experimenting with. We need more active committees in both Houses to report more rapidly—so they would need to be better staffed.
	We need greater government respect for scrutiny reserves. When I was chair of Sub-Committee F of the European Union Committee, on two successive meetings of the Social Affairs Council, the scrutiny reserve was overridden by Ministers who said: "Yes, but we felt that it was very important to make this gesture at this particular time". The reference was to the major issues of the social dimension and on Article 13 anti-discrimination directives, which extend the capacities of EU law.
	We also need to consider closer links between committees in this Parliament and committees of other parliaments, and whether we ought to work harder to involve our national Members of the European Parliament a little more closely in the work of the committees of this House and of the other place, as is done in a number of other parliaments.
	The Government might also have considered putting forward their own proposals for the reform of COSAC—which has the potential to be a useful body even though, so far, the quality of the food provided has been rather higher than the quality of the debate.
	Then we come to the question of the institutional triangle, raised by a number of speakers. Clearly, the Council presidency has to be modified in various ways. We could perhaps move towards each Council electing its president for a certain period—its own chairman. There needs to be simplification in terms of the numbers of Council meetings.
	So far as concerns the European Parliament, I am very sorry that the move from Strasbourg to Brussels appears again to have dropped off the list. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, shakes his head. I trust that the Government will be extremely firm on this matter. It seems to me that giving Strasbourg the Food Agency and any other agency that it wants would be worthwhile compensation for getting the European Parliament to the place where the European media, the European lobbies, the European Commission and the Council Secretariat are—a long overdue presentation.
	I suggest that the weakest point of the triangle at present is the Commission. It is too weak. The prestige of the Commission has gone down. Attempts to reform it, led by Commissioner Kinnock, have faltered. I get the sense that within a number of national governments respect for the quality of the Commission's work is continuing to decline. That is very worrying because we need an effective Commission. We need an effective body at the centre to make proposals, to consult and to make sure that implementation takes place.
	The college of Commissioners is clearly too large and will get larger. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that we should have followed the French in proposing that we now make a jump to a much smaller Commission—which would be a much more effective Commission. I am very sorry that when, in a meeting of the European Union Committee of this House, some of us made that proposal to Peter Hain, he showed very little interest in taking it further.
	As to the choice of the president of the Commission, the least that can be said is that the present process has not worked very well since 1985. The process through which various governments with British Prime Ministers in the lead black-balled the people whom they did not want—so that you ended up with someone whom no one particularly minded—has applied to both Delors' immediate successor and to the one after that. There is perhaps even some merit in Giscard d'Estaing's idea that a European congress which brought together jointly national parliaments and the European Parliament for this one purpose—namely, to elect a president of the Commission—might be one way forward.
	On the simplification of the treaty, I teach European Institutions at the London School of Economics. It is an advanced course lasting a year, and our students struggle hard to understand the full complexity of the European Union, including the differently numbered articles of the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty establishing the European Community and the amendments of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Treaty of Nice, et cetera. It is a minefield. A simplified treaty would be an immense benefit.
	The biggest mistake that the Danes made after Maastricht was to decide that as part of their referendum process they would distribute copies of the treaty to all households. I remember the Belgian representative for that IGC, Phillipe De Schoutheete, saying afterwards that, if we had understood that the outcome of our negotiations would be read by the wider public, we would have understood it as an entirely different exercise. We need a simplified treaty.
	I very much hope that the Conservatives will not get too hung up on the novelty of calling this a constitutional treaty. The Treaty of Rome was, after all, a constitutional treaty. For that matter, the UN Charter is a much weaker form of constitutional treaty. The British Constitution is a highly complex set of Acts, charters, declarations, et cetera, which we are still doing our best to simplify and tidy up a little. I welcome the remark that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, quoted from Michael Ancram:
	"We want Europe to work better".
	If that is the Conservatives' approach, we are very happy with it.
	The most important area in which we need Europe to work better is foreign policy. I agree strongly with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, said on the matter. Twelve years after the end of the Cold War, with 25 member states in the European Union, more likely to follow within the next 10 to 15 years, and a more difficult and distant relationship with the United States—for whom the European region is no longer the main foreign policy priority—we need a Europe that can live up to its broader international responsibilities.
	The current half-built institutions we have for common foreign policy are not good enough. The other week, someone referred to "the High Representative for the lowest common denominator". That is part of the problem. Solana dashes around immensely energetically, but what can he do in the end? The current division between the Commission and the Council secretariat is untidy and inefficient. There is slow progress, originally on British initiative, towards a European security and defence policy. That must remain intergovernmental, but at least we can move, as some noble Lords said, towards modified unanimity. Of course, we need legal personality, further integration of missions abroad and a larger common budget.
	On justice and home affairs, I disagree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Owen. We need to integrate an area that concerns civil liberties and law into the structures that have proper oversight. We need the European Court of Justice to come in also. On Iraq, at present, we are suffering from a situation whereby in Guantanamo Bay and allegedly in Diego Garcia, as some of us will discuss tomorrow, actions are taking place on prisoners of war that are said to fall outside both domestic and international law. That is unacceptable. Actions that must now be taken jointly by police forces, intelligence services and Customs services in Europe must be subject to law at European level.
	A European Union of 25 will be a major player in the world and needs to be a major contributor to world order and world prosperity. For that it needs institutions strong enough to manage its international responsibilities. It needs to build mutual confidence in the implementation of common policies and standards by member states. And it needs to be made more comprehensible to its citizens and more accountable to political representatives elected by those citizens.
	There is much still to be done. This time it needs to be done well—better than at Nice and at Amsterdam. We need a constitutional settlement. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that we should not rush it. If it takes longer than 2003, we do not need to rush to a new Treaty of Rome. Above all, we need to carry national parliaments and national publics with us this time.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I shall not make the customary remarks about the excellence of today's debate. It must be self-evident. Such debates show your Lordships' House at its finest. That applies especially to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and to the very good and detailed European Union Committee reports. Similarly, I shall not trouble your Lordships with too many details of the background to the debate, to which so many have alluded so eloquently.
	I fully support my noble friend Lord Howell in many of his worries about much of the detail of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on the convention, especially concerning the new charter of fundamental rights, the legal personality and, most importantly, the discussion about losing our seat and France's on the UN Security Council in favour of a European Union seat. Is this true? It seems difficult to believe. Will the Minister clarify that? These were areas of concern for many of your Lordships. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, was particularly interesting.
	I shall comment on just three areas mentioned by many noble Lords that feature prominently in the convention report. The convention's scope is very wide, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, so I shall concentrate on those three points: first, as the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Beaumont, mentioned, the need to address the growing public disenchantment with the European Union, not only in the United Kingdom; secondly, the ongoing debate about the balance of power between the European Union institutions; and, thirdly, a few of the institutional reforms needed to cope with enlargement.
	As we await the first draft this month, it is said that we should expect a great work. Former President Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who chairs the convention with the very able and distinguished former ambassador, Sir John Kerr, compares its work to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Perhaps that is the result of having just read David McCullough's very good book on John Adams. Another decisive moment may be when President Chirac and Mr Schroder produce their Franco-German paper this month, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Watson.
	Nearly a year has passed since the convention started to meet. The whole House agrees that it will be of immense importance to this country and to the continent's future, as emphasised strongly by my noble friend Lord Inglewood and by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. However, from all the latest reports, the convention is taking the path of yet further arrogation of powers to the European centre and away from the member states. Was this really the reason for which it was set up?
	One of the points brought out clearly in the Select Committee's very good and comprehensive report is the need to address,
	"the public disenchantment with an ever more powerful, yet opaque European Union".
	Without the political will, the European Union will stagnate once again, as it did for many years until the Single European Act, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, mentioned. Many more noble Lords have emphasised that this is a time of unique opportunity for the European Union. With the future enlargement of the European Union, we are forced to debate and will have to decide on many changes that are essential if we want it to succeed.
	I remember well the final foreign affairs meeting in the European Parliament in 1994 when I served as a Member. We discussed for many hours whether we should bring in the institutional changes essential for the European Union before the accession of Austria, Finland, and Sweden or whether we should leave it until later. One of the few important responsibilities of the European Parliament is the final decision on the admittance of new member states—that is to say, enlargement. There were strong and persuasive arguments on both sides. Morally, like now, it was agreed that the three countries should join first. Alas, the institutional changes are still being discussed and have yet to be finalised. Initially, we were led to believe that this was what the convention was meant to be about; not about acquiring still further and further powers. With all the reports that we read, it is difficult to follow the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, that this is not the case.
	Today an ever-expanding European Union is looking, rightly, to the future, not the past. We need a European Union that concentrates on its core tasks—building peace, prosperity, and stability in Europe. But a great deal of the European debate seems to centre on various people vying for presidencies. Even President Giscard d'Estaing was reputed to be unhappy about the constant competing of the intergovernmental view to those of the Commission, saying,
	"If we reduce the EU system to one or another of the two visions, the Convention will be blocked, but also Europe will be blocked".
	As I can remember, it is the same old argument between the intergovernmental and the institutional powers; that is to say, the Commission. We have had much the same debate through the centuries here in Britain of where should lie the balance of power between government and Parliament.
	Finally, there are many institutional changes that will have to be made as the EU has more member states—further subsidiarity, further involvement of national parliaments, and further consideration of changes in the QMV system. One important change will be the present system of rotating Council presidencies. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, stressed, the current system will not work.
	However, we oppose the proposal for an individual president elected by his peers for five years. We support team presidencies, or chairman of the Council, with perhaps one large member state working with two small ones for two years. As my right honourable friend Mr Michael Ancram said in another place:
	"Such a reform would have many benefits. It would provide longer-range Council planning, it would be a model for international co-operation and, above all, it would not be a threat to the position of the smaller member states of the EU".
	It is typical of this Government's muddled approach to Europe that the Prime Minister was unable to face up to this difficulty. He wills the end without willing the means. It is widely recognised that the Council of the European Union needs reform if it is to work after enlargement. However, as my noble friend Lord Howell said earlier, instead of concentrating on real reforms this Government have proposed a grandiose post of permanent President of Council, thus alienating our smaller partners.
	It is a great disappointment that while the Government talk about a Europe of nation states, they do not mean it. Last year the Prime Minister proposed a "unified European foreign policy". How can that be reconciled with a Europe of sovereign nation states? It cannot. As the noble Lord, Lord Owen, asked, will the Government enter into a single treaty? Such a policy would either mean that the European Union's foreign policy was reduced to the level of the lowest common denominator or involve the imposition of some countries' foreign policy over others—a thoroughly undesirable situation.
	Can the Minister help us on what the convention means by the statement that there may no longer be a common foreign policy but, more worryingly, a single foreign policy? Iraq is a good example in which there are marked differences of view. How will Article 53 from the defence working group work out in that regard?
	If the European Union cannot deliver prosperity, it is failing in one of its main tasks. Yet, although unemployment continues to increase in the European Union, the single market remains incomplete and enlargement has not yet even begun to be bedded down, the Government want the European Union to take on still more powers. This side of the House wants a Europe of sovereign nation states that engages with the peoples of Europe to deliver what they want—peace, prosperity and stability.
	I return to my first point. We hope that the Government will start to match their rhetoric with action and begin to build a Europe that delivers what its peoples want, even if that be for a start in pubs and homes as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. Are we to understand that the Government will support the referendum mentioned by my noble friend Lord Howell or refuse it? I very much support the views on asylum and immigration and Russia outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We must look to Europe more widely for many of the answers rather than just look within the European Union.
	I conclude with a reminder from the report. It states,
	"that the Convention's conclusions, whatever form they take, are not binding and that the real decisions will be taken by the Governments at the IGC in 2004 in Berlin".

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, today's debate has been a welcome reconfirmation—not that any was needed—of the interest of this House in European matters in general, and in the discussions on the future of Europe in particular. I, too, am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his committee for their report and for the excellent work that they do. I am grateful to all your Lordships for the hard work that has so evidently gone into this debate.
	I should like to start with some general remarks about the convention and by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that there is no question about the importance of the convention. The convention is an exceptional forum because it offers us a unique opportunity to debate fully the fundamental issues facing the European Union. It is an opportunity to discuss openly how we can take the Union forward in a way that increases our collective prosperity and security and improves our quality of life. Against the backdrop of the expansion of NATO and the enlargement of the European Union, we have the sort of opportunity that arises only once in a generation—an opportunity to define the type of Europe that we and our partners want for our children and succeeding generations.
	The work of the convention provides for broader discussion and consultation than has ever been possible before. As today's debate has shown, real discussion can reveal proposals that are radically different from one's own. I personally welcome the hugely interesting and very thought-provoking contribution from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for her very thoughtful remarks on this issue.
	This House is a relatively homogeneous forum. Imagine the variety of ideas being generated within the convention, where members are far more heterogeneous in their background and aspirations. I also bear in mind the description by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, of progress on treaties that sometimes results in negotiations bearing a remarkable resemblance to trench warfare. I am therefore particularly pleased that we have such doughty fighters in your Lordships' House as our representatives on the convention. We have heard from two of our alternates, the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord Tomlinson, as well as from my noble friend Lady Scotland, all of whom are fully engaged in the discussions. From what we have heard, it is evident that they very much relish the exchange of views that the convention offers. I thank them all for their hard work and application on these issues.
	Some of your Lordships, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Howell, expressed concern at what they described almost as "decisions" which they deem the convention has taken or may have taken. However, the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, was clear in his excellent contribution that the work of the convention is not intended to take the place of the traditional discussions by heads of state and government in an intergovernmental conference. The convention's work "paves the way" for the IGC. The IGC is the place where final decisions will be taken, by leaders, by unanimity. The noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Owen, need comforting on that point. I assure them that nothing has yet been decided. But it is clear that the convention is building consensus in many areas. So it is vital that we remain fully involved and try to do our best to help move the agenda forward in the convention.
	In the mean time, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans that it is important that there is ample opportunity for further discussion at parliamentary level, in civil society, in our media, universities, schools and other institutions. Serious contributions to the debate on Europe are still very much lacking in the media, in the BBC and elsewhere. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will make the views that he put so cogently to your Lordships' House known to the chairman and the director-general of the BBC.
	I turn to the timetable. We are now set to see the focus shift to look at institutional issues. The next plenary session, on 20th and 21st January, will discuss the functioning of the institutions and how best to ensure their effectiveness after enlargement. February will see discussions on the final working group report on social policy in Europe. There will also be plenary discussion about the role that regions or sub-member state authorities should play in the future of the Union.
	Developing in parallel to this agenda, draft articles for the new EU constitutional treaty will be prepared and discussed. The drafts will be presented to the convention in tranches, with the first tranche to be discussed in February. We understand that all parts of the possible new treaty will be available by early May.
	Heads of state and government confirmed at the Copenhagen European Council last month that the convention will present the results of its deliberations in time for the June 2003 European Council in Thessalonika. It was also confirmed at Copenhagen that the new member states will participate fully in the work of the next intergovernmental conference. The new treaty that will result from that IGC will be signed after the accession of the 10 new member states.
	I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who was so worried about the lack of discussion, that we have from June 2003 probably until May 2004 to develop that national debate which he, I and many other noble Lords wish to see. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, who urged Her Majesty's Government to adopt a practical role, that that is exactly the role that Her Majesty's Government are undertaking. My noble friend's description of negotiating her way through the turbulent waters of the working group on the charter is a perfect example of exactly that: of practicality and the importance of painstaking analysis, painstaking knowledge-gathering and, above all, patience.
	Many noble Lords concentrated their remarks on the constitution. I refer to the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford, Lord Tomlinson, Lord Watson, Lord Williamson, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. The Government have made no secret of their support for an EU constitutional treaty. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, was right; we have a constitution of sorts already, but the current EU treaties are so long, complicated, confusing and overlapping that maintaining the status quo simply is not plausible. There is a wide and growing consensus that a constitution would resolve a number of problems currently facing the Union. It would make clear what the EU is and define what the EU does; and it would specify how the EU acts. But, crucially, a constitutional treaty as we envisage it would be a relatively concise document that any interested reader would be able to understand.
	But let me be clear and emphatic on this point. We are not advocating a constitution at any price. The key will be in the content; and that content will be discussed comprehensively in the convention over the coming weeks.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell, had concerns on these issues. However, the Prime Minister has made it clear that we want a constitution to set out that the European Union is a union of nation states. This is not just the United Kingdom view. It is the view of the overwhelming majority of member state and accession country governments. There really is not a federalist plot, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, fears. There is not even a federalist love-child, as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, imagines. There is no suggestion that an EU constitution is also a means to an EU superstate.
	I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, had quoted a little more from the speech made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I am sure that he has the full text. He will know as well as I do that my right honourable friend spoke about the importance of electorates feeling close to their own national governments, that they did not feel the same towards European institutions and that it was a settled view that there should not be a federal superstate.
	Let us turn to the role of national parliaments, with which so many of your Lordships were rightly concerned. Some of your Lordships were less than impressed at the proposals for enhancing the role of national parliaments.

Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, has repeated the phrase, "We will not have a constitution at any price". That phrase has been stated without the price being defined. What is the price that the Minister will not pay?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I rather hoped that I had made it clear that we would not have a constitution based on a content with which we could not agree. The important issue is what the constitution says—not having a constitution. I hoped that I had made that clear.
	I return to the role of national parliaments. I agree strongly with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that strengthening the role of national parliaments has enjoyed widespread support in the convention. As the noble Lord says, that is heavily stressed in the first report of the European Union Select Committee. It is absolutely right that national parliaments should be better able to hold national governments to account. National parliamentarians are the most visible, directly elected representatives of the people. By offering them a greater role in EU business, we hope to bring Europe closer to its citizens and to address the perception that the Union suffers from a lack of democratic legitimacy and accountability. Indeed, we aim to address the very issues to which my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal referred and which so concerned the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings.
	There have been many opportunities for parliamentary debate on developments and reforms of the European Union in the past few years. There have been the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice, committee reports, parliamentary questions and debates such as this. I was a little sad that the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, should be quite so gloomy about the lack of discussion. However, I was forcefully struck by the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson about how little feedback he has had on his role in the convention. I must say that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, about organising seminars to which no one turns up, has a disheartening concordance with some of my own experiences.
	The noble Lords, Lord Howell, Lord Williamson and Lord Stoddart, and my noble friend Lord Brennan were all very concerned about the charter. My noble friend Lady Scotland went to some lengths to cover that issue. She is an expert in the field, and I am sure your Lordships are as aware as I am of our great good fortune in having her considerable intellect and talent brought to bear on the issue.
	I take issue with some of the more colourful passages in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. This Government have always made it clear that the charter as proclaimed at Nice was not suitable for incorporation in the treaty. We have repeatedly explained that there are issues of legal certainty that would need to be resolved before we could consider that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said that he was very concerned on that point. As the Prime Minister said,
	"we cannot support a form of treaty incorporation that would enlarge EU competence over national legislation".
	That is clear, unequivocal and a direct quote from the Prime Minister's Cardiff speech.
	By engaging positively in the discussion in the charter working group, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, along with other colleagues, has been able to make people elsewhere aware of our difficulties. As my right honourable friend suggested, that has not been an easy task, but some of those people have come to appreciate that they, too, would have some problems with a fully incorporated charter.
	I again stress that we have not agreed to anything yet. I made it clear at the outset that those decisions would be for leaders at the intergovernmental conference. The charter now discussed is very different from the Nice version. It brings the charter back to the basis in treaty, in the ECHR and in common constitutional tradition. It links the commentary, which has hitherto been separated from the charter, and amplifies it, so that the charter as currently discussed would help to clarify the difference between legally enforceable rights and the more aspirational principles of the charter. I hope that that goes some way towards addressing some of the concerns of my noble friend Lord Brennan and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I say to my noble friend that there are remedies. They are the same remedies as are available to citizens today. The charter seeks to make visible the rights that our citizens already have. It does not seek to change that.
	My noble friend Lord Tomlinson and the noble Lords, Lord Lamont, Lord Williamson and Lord Willoughby de Broke, were also concerned about subsidiarity. Many of your Lordships were unconvinced about the appetite in Europe for the relevance or importance of subsidiarity. I acknowledge that the word is not particularly catchy or self-explanatory but the principle is an important one, for which, as my noble friend said, the UK has argued forcefully.
	The recommendations of the subsidiarity working group in the convention should be recognised for what they are—they are not modest; they are ground-breaking. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, asked what the national powers might be. The Union has never had a mechanism that would allow national parliaments to make a political judgment on whether the EU's legislative proposals suggest action at the right level. The convention suggests exactly that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, made a powerful case on that issue and for the back-up that was needed. Some very interesting ideas were proposed by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Owen. My noble friend and I are happy to debate this matter further. I say to all noble Lords—and to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, in particular—that we are happy to deal with such questions. We have made ourselves available on a number of occasions and shall do so again if there are still unresolved questions.
	I turn to the question of the legal personality, which exercised many noble Lords. We have said that we could support a single legal personality for the EU in some circumstances. We could not accept a single legal personality if that jeopardised the national representations of member states in international bodies.
	My noble friend Lord Judd asked about the United Nations. There is no question of the United Kingdom surrendering our seat on the UN Security Council. We support the reform of the Security Council to include five new permanent members, including Germany, Japan and India. I stress, in view of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that we shall not relinquish our existing rights as a permanent member in so doing. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, was right: there are huge difficulties in this regard.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for having addressed the point about the United Nations. Will she clarify the Government's position on a seat for the European Union at the Security Council?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not as yet in a position to do that. I said that we believe that Germany should be included and that there should be five new members—we specified three of them. I am aware of the difficulties raised by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, as are all my colleagues. Those difficulties are inherent in our discussions. I am grateful to him for putting his case so cogently.
	Foreign and defence policy must remain intergovernmental. We would not countenance a shift away from the current intergovernmental approach to the EU's foreign and security policy or in the field of defence policy. Those areas must be made more effective and efficient, along with every other institution and policy area of the European Union. However, foreign policy and defence policy must remain in the hands of national governments co-operating freely. We have consistently made that clear in the convention. We believe that the discussions in the external actions working group went a long way towards clarifying how we can improve the effectiveness of CFSP and make EU external action more coherent.
	However, we were less happy with the outcome on "double-hatting" the roles of the high representative and the external relations commissioner. We made clear our opposition from the start. Several member states and the current high representative share our concerns. No one has been able to answer our questions about accountability to two different masters. However, we welcome the fact that the "double-hatting" model in the group report is firmly Council-based and presented as one of four possible options.
	Jean-Luc Dehaene made clear in the plenary discussions of the report on 20th December that CFSP would remain intergovernmental. The defence working group's report has the potential to make a real difference to European security and defence policy by supporting our common foreign and security policy objectives with military means.
	The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, raised questions in relation to ESDP and NATO. The ESDP is not NATO. We are not in the business of an EU territorial defence guarantee; nor should we be. Within the ESDP we must focus our energies on areas where we can make a real difference, but not a difference that would undermine NATO. That means strong support for increased co-operation on capabilities development and it means a targeted financial commitment at a time when there are other calls on our resources. But, by working together, we can get more for our money, and that will offer real security dividends.
	I believe that that point was made very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. His reference to the Balkans and to our role in the Quartet on the Middle East was very much a case in point. He raised the issues of too many cooks in the foreign policy kitchen, the importance of better back-up for Mr Solana and better use of EU diplomatic missions. For a dreadful moment, I thought that the noble Lord had been a fly on the wall this morning during some of the discussions with ambassadors in the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. His points are very well taken.
	The noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Lea of Crondall, raised points about social policy.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. I believe that she has come to the end of the section on foreign and security policy. One question hangs over the whole debate. Have the Government's representatives on the convention—they are the Government's representatives—agreed and therefore created government policy to the effect that the two pillars, including defence, security, justice and so on, should be collapsed into a single unified treaty? Has that been agreed? If it has, presumably it is government policy.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is not agreed. I stress again to noble Lords that nothing is agreed until the IGC; nothing is agreed until the Prime Minister agrees it.
	I was going to mention some points relating to social policy and JHA. Those issues did not interest quite as many of your Lordships as did some of the other issues with which I have dealt. Perhaps I may deal with those in correspondence, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, who made some very important points. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, also raised important issues concerning the balance between full employment and work protection.
	I must say a few words about Council reform and Commission reform—a subject which interested the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. The Government have long advocated that the Council should have a stronger role in setting the strategic agenda for Europe. Some reform was agreed at Seville last year, where this strategic role was explicitly recognised. But further reform will be needed to ensure that the Council continues to be effective in an EU of 25 members and more.
	When the convention discusses the institutions later this month, it will, as many noble Lords have remarked, need to consider the presidency system. The six-monthly rotation is no longer efficient nor representative. It results in a lack of continuity in leadership. That is why we have argued for a fixed chair of the European Council, perhaps with some form of "team presidency" which would allow the chairs of the principal sectoral councils to be divided among member states for a decent length of time. That idea is similar to the one put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Owen. We should also look at other ways of improving the Council. Crucially that will involve improving its visibility to the public in the way that so many of your Lordships have discussed.
	I turn to the subject of Commission reform. For Europe to match the level of ambition that its member states want, we need a guardian of the collective interest. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, was very worried about the Commission's power in that respect. But the Government believe that we need a strong body which uses its power of initiative to drive forward the detailed measures needed to implement the strategic agenda set by heads of government. I agree strongly with the forceful point put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we need a body which uses its powers of enforcement to hold each member state to its commitments.
	I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, said. I cannot envisage that any of us believe in our hearts that France would have lifted its beef ban voluntarily without such enforcement powers. That is why we are seeking to strengthen the Commission's powers of initiative and enforcement. We in Britain obey the rules. We need a strong Commission which ensures that all our partners obey the rules in the way that we do.
	Therefore, we favour strengthening the Commission's role in driving through the agenda on immigration and crime. We need to give the Commission more authority to implement legislation agreed by the Council, such as on the crucial issue of opening up financial markets across Europe. We also need to speed up the process under which fines can be imposed after the Commission and the Court of Justice have found member states in breach of their obligations.
	We also need to say something about European parliamentary reform. That would add to the already significant powers and responsibilities, so there is a corresponding case for the Commission to become more accountable as a result. The European Parliament should be able to exercise greater powers of scrutiny over the Commission, a point which many noble Lords have made in the past, and perhaps with Commissioners making more regular appearances before national parliaments too. Some have argued that the European Parliament should elect the Commission President.
	I understand and support the basic idea of making the Commission President more accountable, but, like my noble friend Lord Tomlinson and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, I doubt that that is the right way to go about it. It might make the Commission stronger, but the cost might well be weakening its independence by making such an individual a prisoner of a parliamentary majority.
	I turn to the interesting points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. Where does Europe end geographically and in terms of its power and competencies? We need to be part of crafting the answers to those crucial questions, not declaring that they are so difficult and complex that we simply opt out of discussion.
	The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, spoke about the CAP, a theme to which he often returns. Indeed, that is a good example. We must do something about the common agricultural policy. I hope that we are making progress on it. I do not believe that that is a lost cause, as the noble Earl seemed to imply. We are making progress. It is slow and painful but we have huge responsibilities. We cannot go on subsidising every cow in Europe to the tune of two dollars a day while we subsidise 1.2 million starving people around the world to the tune of one dollar a day and call ourselves a decent society. The Government want to be part of that debate and want to shape our future.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I would be grateful if she would answer the question which she began to answer and then shied away from. I refer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and me; that is, whether Russia is eligible for membership of the European Union.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not have a crystal ball. As things stand, I rather doubt that Russia would want to join the European Union, and that it would get over the threshold for even beginning discussions on the European Union. However, I cannot tell your Lordships that it is unthinkable that in 10 years' time Russia might not be in that position. Ten years ago we would not be discussing membership with the countries with which we are now discussing membership. When I first became a Minister we would not even have seriously discussed European membership with Turkey. We have made considerable progress. So, there is no crystal ball, but I can see that in due course such a position might be possible.
	I shall conclude; I am sure that noble Lords wish that I would. The Government's message on the convention is, indeed, simple: a strong Europe is in Britain's interests and this Government are an active partner in Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, was right in part. It is a difficult process. I rather thought that the noble Lord underestimated my noble friends and my right honourable friends. They are hugely seized of the problems and are tackling them. They may not always carry their arguments. My noble friend was frank about that in her opening address. However, they are tackling the problems with considerable intelligence and wisdom.
	We have a vision of the Europe we want. It is a Europe that is better able to take decisions; more easily understood; more accessible to ordinary citizens; more democratic, where responsibilities are set clearly for all to see, and which enhances the quality of life of its citizens.
	We are not alone in our vision. That is why we are happy to engage in the convention and why we make alliances with partners where we can. The Government's agenda represents a logical and effective way forward in shaping the European Union of the future. We look forward to the continuing debate in the convention; and my noble friend and I very much look forward to the continuing debate in your Lordships' House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Convention on the Future of Europe: EUC Report

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on The Convention on the Future of Europe (30th Report, HL Paper 163, Session 2001–02) and the minutes of evidence taken on 8th October (HL Paper 33).—(Lord Grenfell.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Chemicals: EUC Report

Lord Crickhowell: rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on Reducing the Risks: Regulating Industrial Chemicals (13th Report, HL Paper 81, Session 2001–02).

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I must say that at this late hour I am rather tempted to move that the House do now adjourn until 2.30 p.m. tomorrow. But I think that might cause hysterics on the Government Front Bench. I do not want to do that.
	However, I must say that I do not think it is satisfactory that we have had to wait 11 months since publishing this report, and now have only an hour or so at this very late hour to debate matters of great importance concerning human health, the environment, the chemical industry and programmes of testing using vast numbers of live animals.
	Because my noble friend Lord Selborne, the chairman of Sub-Committee D is also chairman of the UK Chemical Stakeholders Forum, I was asked to chair this particular inquiry; but I am thankful that we continued to benefit from my noble friend's enormous knowledge of the subject. I also want to express my thanks to our special adviser, Mr Nigel Haigh, and to our Clerk, Mr Tom Radice, for their invaluable contributions.
	The debate comes at a moment when it may still be possible to influence the nature of proposed legislation designed to regulate the manufacture, marketing and use of a very large number of industrial chemicals. That there is a need for legislation is really unarguable. The UK Government in their 1999 Chemical Strategy say that they are,
	"very concerned that we do not have even a basic assessment of the possible risks of most chemicals released into the environment in large quantities".
	The European Commission published its White Paper Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy in February 2001. It stated that,
	"the lack of knowledge about the impact of many chemicals on human health and the environment is a cause for concern".
	The UK Chemicals Industries Association,
	"fully supports the key health and environmental goals of the proposed legislation",
	although it is critical on method and detail.
	In June 2001 the Environment Council welcomed the White Paper as "an important first step", reaffirmed its commitment to the development of a new chemicals policy, but called for further work, emphasising the need for,
	"streamlined, practical and effective procedures",
	which are "realistically achievable"; and called for the Commission to present its proposals by the end of 2001.
	A number of task forces were established to work on problem areas and the target date for more detailed proposals slipped to mid 2002. Judging by noises from Brussels, even Easter 2003 may now be an optimistic estimate. There is also a real danger that everything will slip beyond the European Parliament elections in June 2004 with further problems created by enlargement.
	The White Paper set a target date of the end of 2005 for the registration of substances produced in quantities exceeding 1,000 tonnes per annum. That target is now almost certainly unachievable. This debate provides an opportunity to emphasise the need for the Commission to move with a greater sense of urgency; and for the Government to indicate their own views on the current timetable.
	The starting point is that we appear to have an effective regime for the notification and evaluation of all post-1981 chemicals—approximately 2,700 of them at the time that we produced our report. However, the EU regime for pre-1981 chemicals has generated far less satisfactory information about the 30,000 chemicals produced in quantities of more than one tonne per annum, while only a tiny handful of risk assessments and risk reduction strategies have been published in respect of the 140 existing chemicals that are included in the lists of chemicals requiring immediate attention.
	Faced by this clear evidence of failure, the Commission proposed a new regime to be known as REACH, with three main elements: registration, evaluation and authorisation. The idea is that the industry will be required to provide data and preliminary risk assessments for the 30,000 or so old chemicals similar to that produced for the 2,700 marketed since 1981. Manufacturers will have a powerful incentive to submit a complete registration dossier, because failure to do so may result in marketing being banned—an incentive lacking under the present arrangements. There will be much reliance on preliminary assessment by industry, with the authorities evaluating only a minority of assessments, but with authorisation required for chemicals identified as of high concern.
	In our report, we expressed great scepticism about the ability to deliver what is a highly ambitious programme with unrealistic timetables and equally unrealistic estimates of the resources required. We suggested that it might be a mistake to move at the outset to a single system that seeks to combine the arrangements for new and existing chemicals. We thought that the new legislation was likely to be complicated and contentious, and that the Commission would be adding to the difficulties if it tried to do everything at once.
	In paragraphs 202 to 210, we set out a proposed programme that breaks up the legislative package into phased parts. We urged the Commission to get its priorities right and tackle first the chemicals that provide the greatest risk. We argued strongly that the resources required were being underestimated and expressed grave concern about the huge number of animal tests that would be needed to carry out the programme within the timescale suggested.
	On animal testing, we said:
	"The White Paper provides a rare opportunity to generate the political will in the EU to promote non-animal testing. The United Kingdom Government must take a lead in that and should make it clear in the Council that it cannot accept a new chemicals strategy that leads to significantly increased animal testing, since this would be unacceptable to the public and lead to failure of the strategy. The EU chemicals strategy must be linked to an EU strategy for minimising animal testing. The United Kingdom Government is more likely to be successful in pressing this argument if it has its own, well-funded programme for finding alternatives."
	The delays that have already taken place suggest that we were right to warn of the danger of trying to produce a single, all-embracing piece of legislation instead of building it step by step over time, with the most urgent tasks tackled first. Unfortunately the oracles, in so far as they can be interpreted, suggest that we may have lost that argument.
	Whatever is decided in the next critical phase will be important not just for the environment and health, but because of its potential impact on manufacturing industry. In the second paragraph of our report we emphasised that:
	"Manufactured chemicals play a key role in the provision of goods and services on which modern society is dependent, and the chemical industry is Europe's third largest, employing 1.7 million people directly and with up to 3 million additional jobs dependent on it".
	The Chemicals Industry Association expressed disappointment about what it called our,
	"lack of emphasis on the key competitiveness issues posed by the Commission's proposals, and its omission of discussion of the potential impact on European industry".
	In fact, we devote a good deal of our report to an examination of competition and world trade issues. In paragraph 147, we identified the many witnesses who argued that imported products must be covered by the new system both to ensure protection of health and the environment and to ensure that EU products remained competitive with finished products originating from outside the EU. We drew attention to WTO issues. In paragraphs 164 to 172, we examine what is happening in the United States and in other OECD countries. We refer to the work being carried out following the UNCED conference in Rio in 1992 and other UN work. We say that, given the global nature of the chemicals industry, we welcome the growing attention of international organisations to chemicals policy and the co-ordination that is taking place. In paragraphs 135 to 145, we examine the real problems posed for downstream users.
	Many of those competition points are helpfully picked up in the government paper published on 9th December 2002, which sets out three overarching objectives:
	"Creating a fast, efficient and workable process of testing, screening and assessing chemical substances to provide the information necessary to control those substances of concern, starting with the most harmful, because of their impacts on human health and the environment; keeping animal testing to the minimum necessary to protect human health and the environment; and maintaining and enhancing the competitiveness of the chemical industry".
	On the last point, the Government emphasise, as we do, the importance of the proposals being consistent with WTO and other multi-national agreements and of seeking a global approach to the management of chemicals. The paper emphasises that the EU chemicals strategy,
	"should encourage innovation and maintain and enhance competitiveness".
	In our report, we say:
	"The highest priority should now be given to developing two items of legislation: authorisation of chemicals of very high concern; and registration and evaluation of existing chemicals . . . Whatever scheme of new legislation is brought forward we will only be satisfied if it: speeds the process of identifying chemicals that require risk management, enables risk reduction measures to be adopted without delay following identification, creates a sense of ownership among stakeholders and provides for appropriate post-marketing surveillance".
	I welcome the fact that, on almost all the crucial issues, there is much common ground between the position adopted by our committee, the position of the British Government and the conclusions of the June 2001 Environment Council.
	I conclude by emphasising the importance of speeding up action at home and abroad. The Commission must come forward with detailed proposals, but work on the wider policy must not be allowed to lead to further delay in evaluating the 140 priority chemicals already identified. In this country, the UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Selborne, does invaluable work identifying priorities and finding practical solutions. There must be equally effective activity by the Environment Agency in producing its too long-delayed chemicals strategy and its promised study of a product register. There must be better co-ordinated activity by government departments and agencies and an effective system of post-marketing surveillance.
	Consultation has gone on long enough. Positive action is now required by the European Commission and by the responsible authorities within the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on Reducing the Risks: Regulating Industrial Chemicals (13th Report, HL Paper 81, Session 2001–02).—(Lord Crickhowell.)

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I wish first, as leader of my party in Wales, to pay a brief tribute to the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. His background in Wales was a basic background, with which we are all familiar. An aunt of mine always used to say that a brilliant boy had come forward and gone out of our valley to make good. Many did so, through the aspirations of their parents.
	Lord Jenkins was a wise, civilised man with a huge, balanced vision. I hope that that is the spirit in which I may address the issues raised in the EU Committee report. I liken him to someone whom I knew, who was blinded in the war but became a main board director of Shell Chemicals. He was a grammar school boy. My uncle was a chemist. I spent the whole of the 1960s in the chemical industry. Therefore, I am well out of date. Unfortunately, I was not a member of Sub-Committee D at the time that this report was published. I joined the sub-committee of the European Union Committee in December. I am particularly happy to welcome back my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer who has not been well but is now back to full health. I am pleased to see her because she will sum up the contents of the report, with which I am not as familiar as I should be.
	In view of the background that I once had in the industry, I want to make a number of points. Typically, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, set out the basis of the report. It is only 12 miles from Crickhowell to Talgarth. Indeed, Crickhowell lies in the valley of the Usk and Talgarth in the catchment area of the River Wye. We have seen a number of issues of that type in the chemical industry. I worked on Teesside at one point. I noted that the River Tees was not as clear as either the River Wye or the River Usk. That was because of the preponderance of the chemical industry there.
	I note the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about the existing scheme since 1981 and the flaws in the 1994 EU regulations, clearly made in this report. Indeed, hardly any risk assessments have been made of the chemicals on the priority list. That is an appalling judgment because 1994 is some considerable time ago.
	The EU White Paper proposes a new regime, outlined by the noble Lord, in the REACH proposals. The onus is on the industry to justify the use of chemicals. From a safety point of view, that may not necessarily be the primary consideration of the company concerned. On page 39, the report recommends that classification, packaging and labelling of chemicals and preparations, the registration and evaluation of new chemicals, the registration and evaluation of existing chemicals, the restrictions on marketing in use, and the authorisation of chemicals of very high concern should be addressed. I concur that those recommendations should be contained in any future legislation.
	It is desirable that the procedures are streamlined, pragmatic, effective and realistically achievable. However, it is difficult to define the word "pragmatic" in the issue of dangerous chemicals, particularly to human health and the environment. The idea of advocating the transfer of responsibilities to the industry, I believe is probably one which needs closer examination. Risk assessment is complex due to the diverse use of chemicals. As regards the degree of danger of those chemicals, the need for prioritisation is very important.
	There is mention of a central entity to administer the control system and the difficulties that that might entail. I believe that there is merit in the conclusions of the report that perhaps a different approach should be taken. However, the whole question of finance and lack of resources is one which demands close attention. A levy with proper controls on bureaucracy may be one of the answers in helping to finance what is clearly an issue which is not properly resourced at present.
	Briefly, I turn to one or two of my own experiences in the chemical industry concerning the impact of chemicals. I was involved in the development of paraquat in the 1960s. Many risk assessments were made. It was said that pigs had to eat 15 tonnes of potatoes which had been treated with diquat, its sister chemical, before they died. Unfortunately, one or two humans drank paraquat and diquat neat and died, which was not anticipated.
	I visited factories producing chemicals, particularly ammonia which took the skin off my throat and the throats of other people. In those days, employees in chemical plants received a gold watch at the age of 65. Many of them did not reach that age and most were dead 18 months after retiring.
	The issue surrounding organophosphates is alarming and needs to be examined in great detail. The spraying of chemicals creates a great deal of illness among operatives because the safety rules are not properly applied. As regards the treatment of seeds, when I was working in a particular situation I saw at first-hand operatives ingesting dust into their lungs. Clearly, they were very ill as a result and their lives were shortened.
	The whole issue of sheep dip and its chemical problems is a running sore. When I first used a new sheep dip in 1985 I wondered why I was coughing and spluttering after dipping 250 ewes. On reading the label afterwards, I was horrified to see that it contained OP. It was the first time I had seen the warning and I never used an OP dip again. I have had a great deal of anxiety about the contamination of water courses and the release of sheep dips into them. In a little stream which ran through my smallholding I once found 89 dead trout and had to report the incident to the Environment Agency.
	It is vital that the codes are enforced and we must ensure that the wonder chemicals produced to solve many problems are properly vetted and tested. That is vital. I know things have moved on and have greatly improved since the time I worked in the industry. I welcome the report but we must ensure that the whole process is focused, particularly on the most dangerous chemicals. People's lives depend upon it. I want to know, as the report asks, what is the role of the Environment Agency. What can Ministers tell us about that in relation to these chemicals?
	We need an independent body to police the production, marketing and use of chemicals. Indeed, my historical knowledge of the agrochemical industry is that regulation at that time was inadequate. Stakeholders had too much power in the industry over regulation and standards. The result was that although chemicals were registered and tested, controls at the point of use and an understanding of how dangerous they were was inadequate. Post-marketing surveillance, as stated in the report, is vital. In future, the UK Government and EU involvement is essential at a high level and it is important that that is transparent in the interests of all our citizens.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, for giving us the opportunity to debate the report today. I also thank him for his lucid summary of what we did. I was pleased to become a member of Sub-Committee D—I was formerly a member of Sub-Committee C, which became Sub-Committee D. This is right up my street. Those noble Lords who know me well will be aware of my interest in chemicals, although hitherto I have generally confined my interests to the human health effects of exposure to toxic chemicals used in an agricultural context.
	I found the inquiry which resulted in the report most interesting, although not very enlightening. Much of the evidence highlighted systemic deficiencies of which I was already aware. For example, several years ago I asked the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, the Pesticides Safety Directorate and the Health and Safety Executive what independent tests would be conducted to ensure the safety of the products they licensed or authorised. "None", was the response. All three organisations rely upon the information provided by manufacturers. The EU White Paper acknowledges that much of the data provided are deficient, particularly for chemicals in use prior to 1981.
	There are not even any independent laboratory quality control checks. I was informed that the manufacturers are expected to do their own batch tests, and one manufacturer told me that it would be far too expensive for them to check every batch of chemicals produced. This has meant that when things have gone wrong it has been humans, or flora and fauna in the environment, that have sounded the alarms.
	I can understand that there are circumstances when it is impossible for laboratory or field tests to forecast every problem that may arise in practice. What I have always found disturbing is the failure of those responsible for protecting human and environmental health to respond to the distress signals, even, it seems, when they are faced with incontrovertible evidence of harm. Toyber's dictum, which states that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, has been ignored far too often.
	I am constantly bemused by the extreme lengths to which the precautionary principle is invoked in defence of the current policy relating to scrapie, BSE and CJD, when there is as yet no scientific evidence of any causal link. When a chemical formulation—pure chemicals are rarely put on the market—is claimed to be causing damage to human health, the evidence, we are told, is anecdotal. Any attempt to persuade the manufacturer, the licensing authority or even government Ministers to conduct timely causal research based on the classic principles is strenuously resisted. For some strange reason the precautionary principle is given a different definition when chemicals are the culprits, even when there is scientific evidence of damage caused. Remember how long it took for blue asbestos and DDT to be withdrawn.
	I believe that a major handicap has been our own failure to recognise that we have been both unreasonable and unfair to expect those who give permission for a product to be marketed also to be responsible for admitting that they got it wrong. As I have already mentioned, the data supplied during the licensing process are, more often than not, limited. Individual chemicals are tested for various toxic properties but I understand that the safety of the final product is determined only by extrapolation.
	Chemical formulations frequently contain what are described as inert ingredients. These, I have discovered, can be very toxic in themselves. Phenols and epichlorohydrin were both inert ingredients in sheep dips. Both were eventually removed from the sheep dip formulations because they are extremely toxic in their own right, but who knows what their effects have been while they were in use? No-one has tested them. In some cases, an inert chemical will have a synergistic or potentiating relationship with an active ingredient. This may not be discovered until problems occur in the field after a prolonged period of use.
	The report, at paragraphs 151 to 163, details the evidence the committee saw and heard on the subject of post-marketing surveillance. We expressed our surprise at the lack of co-ordination in monitoring for the presence of industrial chemicals. The witness from the World Wildlife Fund-UK felt that post-marketing surveillance was not a satisfactory means of detecting adverse effects from chemicals. She would prefer that chemicals with unsafe properties did not come on to the market.
	Thousands of new chemicals are produced every year. Even I recognise the fact that it would be impossible to prevent any unsafe chemicals from being marketed. We still have much to learn about the way in which humans, animals and plants cope with exposures to new chemical formulations. We are only now learning that some humans are more vulnerable to the effects of some chemicals than others. I suggest that we should be alert to complaints of ill health associated with the use of particular chemicals and that they should be regarded in the same light as miners' canaries—as an early warning system.
	When there is a case of food poisoning, all the stops are pulled out until the cause is found. Death can result from food poisoning, but so, too, can it result from chemical poisoning. Why is it that one is given more importance than the other?
	I wholeheartedly concur with the committee's recommendation that the Government should develop a policy on post-marketing surveillance for industrial chemicals and in particular that the policy should include the uses of chemicals and effects on users. I should like to see that policy implemented rapidly. I should also like to see the development of a system separate from the licensing authorities for the reporting of suspected adverse effects of exposure to chemicals. In the past I have suggested that environmental health officers would be ideally suited to such a role. They already have the right title. They have the investigative training and experience. Who better?
	We still have a very long way to go before we can provide a safe environment. We must not forget that most of the chemicals introduced since the Industrial Revolution have been of great benefit to us; neither must we forget those that have caused enormous harm to humans and to the environment. This report makes wise recommendations. I hope that the Minister will ensure that they are heeded.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my interest in this subject first arose when I was a Member of the European Parliament with chemical interests in my Euro constituency. I was also, for a number of years, a non-executive director of a major British pharmaceutical company. Currently, I am an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chemical Industry. Perhaps I can therefore say that I take an informed interest in matters affecting the chemical industry, but I cannot claim to be an expert, as are so many other participants in this debate.
	I do know, however, that the chemical industry is one of our few remaining successful industries, providing direct employment for a substantial and highly skilled workforce nation-wide, and it is our top manufacturing export earner.
	I am also aware that, in spite of all this success, people working in the industry have a feeling that they are under-valued, unappreciated and regarded as uncaring and concerned only with making a profit. In saying this, I acknowledge that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who is understandably vigilant and concerned about reducing risk, has to be congratulated on all that she has achieved in bringing defects in the system to light.
	The European Union Chemicals Policy Review came as by far the biggest public policy issue to hit the industry in decades. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has said, the industry endorses the White Paper's aim of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. There is full support for this and for the need for a comprehensive system that clearly and openly demonstrates that chemical substances are being used safely, and which replaces the current, rather piecemeal regulatory regime which serves no one's real interests.
	In replying, will the Minister answer the following questions? I apologise if I duplicate or overlap with questions raised by other speakers in the debate or which have been raised in the report.
	Does the Minister agree that it should be possible to develop a simpler, more focused and more proportionate system to test the safety of those relatively few substances which may be of concern? As has been said, the European Union proposals would mean a hugely expensive and bureaucratic system and the use of millions of animals in an untargeted testing process.
	Will the Minister further agree that many chemicals used in production are chemically or physically bonded within final products—for example, plastic articles and rubber tyres? As I understand it, even if in their initial state some chemicals may be hazardous, it does not follow that handling a product made from such chemicals will cause problems. Is it therefore necessary to test a chemical, using animals, which would tell us nothing about its risks when bonded within a product?
	Does the Minister agree that the added costs of the REACH proposals would allow foreign imports of products not subject to the same testing procedures, to compete unfairly? Furthermore, does he agree that the effect of these proposals might also encourage further migration of new manufacturing processes to non-European locations? Those concerns and questions have been raised not only by the British chemical industries but by their European counterparts.
	In summary, a control system is needed that is practicable, proportionate, has realistic deadlines, enhances innovation and minimises the adverse effect on international competitiveness. The committee's report and this debate should help to achieve that.

The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, the whole House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, but no-one more so than me. As he explained, I meant to chair Sub-Committee D but had to rule myself out because of a conflict of interests, as I am chairman of the UK Chemical Stakeholder Forum. It was to everyone's advantage that my noble friend was able to chair the committee and to report so succinctly this evening. He made later speakers' job much easier by covering rapidly the salient points of the report and highlighting that even the strongest Euro-sceptic would agree that in this field it makes sense to have a Europe-wide strategy. Chemicals float around in the air. It is a European business.
	It is highly important that we do not create a competitive disadvantage by putting in place regulations in one country that would not apply to another. My noble friend Lady Hooper said that, while that is true of Europe, there remains a danger that Europe might put in place competitive barriers compared to other regions. My noble friend is right to draw attention to the issue. Ultimately, we should be looking at an OECD-wide policy, involving all the manufacturers of chemicals.
	As my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lady Hooper, stressed, the chemical industry is large. It makes a highly important contribution to the gross national product, the Treasury, employment and our quality of life. Make no mistake, our quality of life would be greatly different were it not for the benefits we all derive from the chemical industry at every moment of our lives.
	The debate has moved at times from the subject of industrial chemicals to herbicides, pesticides, sheep dips, and so on. It is important to remember that we are discussing industrial chemicals. There is already European legislation to deal with a range of other chemicals. It is nevertheless a strange fact that, while we have a relatively successful but by no means perfect policy for what are called new chemicals—that is to say, those introduced since the early 1980s—no proper risk evaluation has been made of 30,000 or more chemicals in production of more than one tonne in Europe. That is surprising, particularly when, by any criteria, whether one determines by high-volume production or high concern—bio-cumulative, toxic or persistent chemicals—many chemicals that have been around for 20, 39 or 40 years register as high concern. We still do not know the extent to which they impact adversely on humans or the environment.
	As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, the Existing Substances Regulation was put in place in the early 1990s. Yet, 10 to 12 years later, we still have no worthwhile product. This Government, rightly, set the pace in Europe by saying that it was time that there were a Europe-wide strategy that made good the defects that the Existing Substances Regulation failed to address. I say happily from these Benches that the British Government have led the way, from the days of the European Council at Chester in 1998 to the publication of their own White Paper in 1999. One of the products of that White Paper was the UK Chemical Stakeholder Forum, which I am proud to chair.
	This was a stopgap measure—like so much in Europe, I fear that it will last rather longer than we would wish—recognising that it will take too long to get Europe-wide legislation in place to register, evaluate and authorise the chemicals that are thought to be of concern. The Government wisely suggested to the chemical industry, the environmental interests, the animal welfare interests, trade unions and other interest groups that it would be helpful if there could be a voluntary forum that could get together to decide on the criteria to determine priority chemicals that should be evaluated faster under voluntary measures in the UK and to put in place voluntary measures that would redress some of the public concerns that were clearly not being dealt with at a satisfactory speed at European level.
	Having taken on what I thought was a poisoned chalice, I am surprised to say that in practice all members of that forum—they are all voluntary members—have collaborated fully. The chemical industry has been extremely co-operative. The existing substances regulation was put in place in the early 1990s to identify those chemicals of high concern. The chemical industry, like everyone else, recognises that it is not acceptable that there is no obvious product from that legislation 10 years later. All sorts of reasons can given, but one clear reason is that the system plays into the hands of those who call for more data and think of an excuse to procrastinate. That is precisely what has happened.
	There are three fundamental issues that a European White Paper should achieve. I can cut out most of what I was going to say, considering the late hour. There is a fundamental role for industry. Industry in this country accepts that and I hope the same is true in the rest of Europe. Industry holds a lot of data. In some cases it is probably stretching the bounds of credibility to say that the information should be concealed from the public because of commercial confidentiality. That is true of some of the information, not all of it.
	There is an obligation on industry and on the downstream users to make as much information as possible open to the wider stakeholders—the public. It needs to be put in the public domain. The White Paper rightly emphasises that, under the REACH system, once a chemical is identified as a priority chemical, the onus is on industry to produce the information required for the dossier. The fundamental flaw under the existing substances regulation has been that the onus has been on the regulator. The White Paper addresses that important issue.
	I was also surprised to find when the committee took evidence that, even though a substance may have been recognised under the existing substances regulation as being thought to be of concern, manufacturing industry says, with all honesty and quite accurately, that it does not always know who the downstream users are. As my noble friend Lady Hooper says, it may well get bonded in such a way that it becomes inert, but you do not know until you discover what uses it is put to. If you do not know what uses it is put to, how on earth do you do a whole-life analysis?
	When the UK chemical stakeholder forum was identifying a particular chemical that was manufactured in this country, one of the first things we did was ask the manufacturer who the users were and how they were going to be monitored. It was accepted that the substance was of concern and had an impact on the environment, but how was the impact going to be limited? First, you form a club of the buyers of the chemical. Had they done it? No, yet for eight or nine years this chemical had been identified as being of concern under the existing substances regulation. We have urged them to form a downstream club of users. Then you can start working out the whole life cycle of these chemicals. That is a start.
	The industry has not served itself well by not anticipating these sensible and fundamental requirements. By putting the onus on industry, the White Paper will do just that. That was the first of my fundamental requirements of any White Paper. The second, which has been touched on by others, was that it should be relevant and proportionate. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell has pointed out that the proposals are not proportionate. They are going to be bureaucratic, they are going to involve a lot of animal testing and it is going to be very difficult to test this number of chemicals, even if all the national facilities in the member states are brought into service. Therefore, one needs to prioritise fairly dramatically. If, as we suspect, many of the 30,000 chemicals about which we are talking are not of high concern, for goodness sake let us put them on the back burner.
	The third fundamental principle is that we should be looking at something much wider than Europe. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lady Hooper—namely, that there is no earthly advantage in reducing the manufacture of chemicals in Europe if you simply import chemicals of the same nature from a lower safety regime elsewhere. You would simply be exporting the problem to countries that are less able to cope.
	The committee was deeply impressed by the evidence from Mr Visser of the OECD. I believe that the long-term solution—I emphasise that this is long term—will appear when we can look at the major manufacturing countries involved with chemicals to agree, not just on the priority list of chemicals of concern but also on the proposals for evaluation and subsequent risk management on a global basis.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, having listened to much of the preceding fascinating debate on the future of Europe, it became evident to me that one of the least-recognised success stories to come out of the European Union has been the fact that environmental legislation, which is much needed on air pollution, water pollution, habitat preservation, and chemicals may be initiated in one country and then spread in a way that is much needed in a single market that does not respect geographical boundaries. That applies especially to environmental issues. This debate is a good example of many of the issues about which people are talking theoretically.
	However, I was disappointed to receive via the Internet this evening the news that Greece has apparently pushed back to the second half of the year the EU chemicals review deal, thereby reinforcing the fears of the chairman of the committee. I hope that the extra time can be used productively by governments to work out some of the more tangled issues involved.
	In my notes I find that I have highlighted similar issues to those already mentioned by other noble Lords. There are three matters to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. At the beginning of the inquiry I was astonished by the fact that, prior to 1981, there had been no regime for notifying and evaluating chemicals. Indeed, not having been involved in the chemicals industry, I was singularly ignorant of that fact. There seems to be a mountain of work to be done to rectify the situation. The White Paper has brought the chemical industry into the light, if not the spotlight. Under the very able chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, I believe that the chemical forum will make good progress in this country.
	I hope that the recommendations made in our report to the Commission will be helpful. I shall focus upon just a few of them in my remarks. I begin with the fact that the work is currently very slow, and, as I have just mentioned, has been further delayed. It is also not sufficiently focused. In their response to our report, I am glad that the UK Government say that they are pushing for clear time-scales. I very much hope for a further assurance from the Minister tonight that the next few months of delay will be used for ensuring that the issues are addressed so that when the matter comes before the Council of Ministers it will be in as complete a form as possible.
	The most astonishing finding during the inquiry was the discovery that there is still a debate about whether the persistent bioaccumulative, toxic and very persistent chemicals should be included in the authorisation system for action on chemicals of high concern. Surely by their very name we can see that they are likely to pose an environmental risk. Along with endocrine disrupters, this collection of chemicals may not perhaps be as instantly emotive to humans as something labelled "carcinogenic"—that is, something from which we could get cancer—but we cannot ignore the damage to swathes of species from chemicals that build up to high levels and will persist for decades in the environment. I very much concur with the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, on the total life usage of chemicals. What happens to those chemicals when they enter the waste stream is one of the big issues that the review should tackle.
	The report also highlights the contentious issue of animal testing. Earlier in the week, one newspaper report said that Sir Paul McCartney had criticised the World Wide Fund for Nature. I regret that criticism. I believe that the World Wide Fund for Nature is trying to find a solution to the very real issue of chemicals in our environment. The fact that whelks are changing sex and are unable to breathe due to environmental pollution caused by endocrine disrupters is every bit as cruel as product testing on rabbits in laboratories. Such pollution affects a less furry and cuddly species, but it affects a much larger environment.
	There is every reason to end in vivo animal testing. The committee also heard compelling evidence that the provision of sufficient resources—an issue on which I understand that the UK Government are pressing hard; I hope for an update from the Minister—could result in more reasonable methods of in vitro testing. We need more research on the environmental effects of chemicals. Unfortunately, however, not all member states agree that more resources are needed in this sphere.
	There is no point in the European Union attempting to reduce such risks if the regulatory regime is subsequently challenged by WTO members who are not covered by it and wish to import chemicals into the EU. What is the Minister's understanding of the position regarding the WTO? The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has already raised the issue, but I should also like to highlight it.
	I shall not repeat the comments of other noble Lords on the report. However, I am very pleased with its recommendations. I was also encouraged by the statement of Caroline Lucas MEP in relation to one issue examined by the sub-committee. Her statement shows that Members of the European Parliament read with interest the reports of your Lordships' House. I hope that they will act on the recommendations in this report.
	It has been a great privilege to serve on Sub-Committee D for the past three years. I have learned a great deal and appreciated the opportunity to hear from experts on a wide range of subjects. I also very much enjoyed working with such knowledgeable Members of your Lordships' House. It is a great sadness that we must rotate off the committee, but I suppose that it is only fair that other noble Lords should be able to enjoy the experience. I hope that I will have the opportunity to serve on the committee again.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, we have been asked to take note of the report of the European Union Committee, Reducing the Risk: Regulating Industrial Chemicals. We have had the opportunity to read the report and to hear the speech of the eminent noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the committee chairman for this set of investigations. We have also heard from the noble Earl, Lord Selborne; the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who I am glad to see well and back in her place; the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, who is new to the committee; and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, whose reputation goes before her. I congratulate the committee on yet another terrific job of scrutinising proposed European Union legislation and on presenting considered and practical observations to urge the European Commission to temper its ambition with realism as it develops its proposals for a new European Union chemicals strategy.
	The Select Committee recommends that the reform should be narrowed in scope to limit legislative delays, take better account of the complexity of downstream chemical usage, and take the opportunity to develop new methods of testing to reflect public demand for reducing animal testing.
	As we have heard, the White Paper has stimulated debate over the future shape of a policy designed to regulate manufacture, marketing and use of industrial chemicals in order to protect human health and the environment. But, as so often with European Union legislation, the proposals are aspirational. They constitute the highest ideals but their ambitious programme is not properly costed, has unrealistic timetables and, as drafted, is impractical. I refer to a single system for new and existing chemicals. The new legislation needed will be complicated and contentious and, as the report of the European Union Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, points out, the Commission will add to the difficulties of having the legislation adopted quickly if it tries to reform everything at once. We on these Benches agree with the report that the priority must be the reform of the regime for existing chemicals and that action is taken on chemicals of very high concern.
	The proposal to transfer responsibility to industry, including downstream users to conduct preliminary risk assessments, is a centrepiece of the White Paper, as we have heard. But the regulation as presently proposed could cost Europe's chemical industry £5 billion—inevitably those huge costs will be passed to the end consumer—affect the jobs of 1.7 million people, and indirectly of many more, and require the testing of up to 30,000 compounds.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, reminded us that Europe is presently the world's largest exporter of chemicals but faces growing competition from the United States, the Middle East and Asia. The chemical industry and the CBI emphasise that if the legislation goes ahead as currently outlined, it will be anything but effective and put European manufacturing at a competitive disadvantage. Our citizens could fall victim to unknown perils and risks from countries of manufacture whose standards and sources we cannot know or control.
	We heartily support the purpose of chemicals policy to minimise or eliminate the adverse effects of chemicals while securing the benefits that they bring. We support the call of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, for speeding up action at home and abroad. He says that consultation has gone on long enough. As he pointed out, we have waited—or is it wasted?—11 months waiting to debate this report. Let us call for positive action by the European Union and by the responsible authorities within the UK, and let us have a more realistic European Union chemicals strategy.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for the debate and for the committee's work in producing a report which the Government take seriously. Most of its recommendations are very much in line with what the Government wish to see as regards Europe. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, for initiating the debate and to other noble Lords who have spoken. I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, back on form.
	There is a certain degree of consensus in the House about what needs to be done. As the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, underlined, the basic problem is that we have a backlog of tens of thousands of chemicals currently in use, and, in many cases, in use for decades, on which we have insufficient data to prioritise and to address the hazards and potential risks to human health and the environment. Although the Government remain committed to getting the best of the current system for assessing and controlling existing substances between now and the coming into force of a new one, it is clear that the existing approach is inadequate to address this fundamental problem and that is why we need a major revision of the regime. It has to be a workable system, which recognises priorities. The discussions about prioritisation and scope are therefore important. Here, the Government have a slightly different approach from the committee. The system must operate as fast as possible to screen, prioritise and assess and, if appropriate, control the chemical substances. That means not overloading registration with large numbers of low priority substances, but it also means initially focusing on detailed work on the substances of most concern. That is to say, we must focus on those substances that are not already controlled by other regulatory regimes, that are available on the market, that meet the criteria for authorisation and that have raised in various ways the concerns of the public and the enforcement authorities.
	That degree of prioritisation, however, does not mean that other substances should be outside the eventual purview of the system, but they should be addressed when those of most concern have been dealt with. That would enable benefits for the environmental and human health side to be gained as rapidly as possible while not blocking up the system. It would also mean that the system as established could be extended to other chemicals. In order to prioritise in that way, we need to operate to fixed deadlines and a clear sense of priorities.
	I turn to the proposition, repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, which is effectively a request that we should have a two-tier system covering existing and new substances. It is true that the new substances directive works well, but improvements can be made. If we want the proposed REACH provisions to be comprehensive, new substances must be included from the start. Therefore separating them out and reducing the scope in the way that the committee suggests would not be appropriate. Having two regimes would undermine REACH, and the regulatory burden of running two regimes would impact on both regulators and the industry. Small and medium-sized firms especially would find it more difficult if we had a two-track system. In the long run, we see no advantage in running such a system. We see a high priority being put on establishing priorities for introduction of the new system.
	On a more specific point, several noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hooper and Lady Miller, referred to the issue of animal testing. The system must get the balance right between the need to have enough information to take decisions on substances and the degree of animal testing that that involves. Regrettable though it may be, it is clear that with the current state of scientific knowledge, it may not be possible to obtain all the necessary information without some animal testing. The Government strongly believe that much can be obtained from tests that do not involve vertebrate animals. We pushed that view in the negotiations in Europe, and will continue to do so. Between now and the coming into force of the regulations, further alternative test measures should be pursued and developed. The Government have called on the European Commission, and on the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods in particular, to do what it can in that area. That is the Government's priority.
	We support the minimisation of animal testing and the need to ensure that the test methods used reflect the so-called three Rs—reduction, refinement and replacement. It is important that the methods used are recognised internationally, however, which would avoid duplication of studies for regulatory authorities outside the European Union.
	One key element of the system will be the authorisation process, and its scope. The Government agree with the committee's report that, in addition to CMRs and POPs, the environmental impacts are equally important. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, made that point. Therefore, PBT and VPVB substances should be included in the scope of authorisation when criteria have been agreed. In other words, the environmental impacts are as important as the human health impact. We are urging that point through the discussions in the process as well.
	A number of noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell, Lord Livsey, and others—referred to the way in which the enforcement authorities will operate and have resources to cope with the increased workload. Clearly, demands will be placed on the regulatory authorities by REACH, and it will depend on REACH being fast, workable and efficient if we are to maximise the resources required at the administrative level. That burden will fall particularly on existing regulatory authorities. It is therefore important that industry should share part of the burden of the new regulatory regime. Under the present regime, regulatory authorities have to some extent borne a disproportionate part of the cost.
	The Environment Agency will clearly be the major regulatory authority in England and Wales. The exact role of the agency—this responds to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey—will depend on the exact form of the legislation. Other parts of the Government—the Health and Safety Executive and other bodies—will be involved in the implementation of REACH. In the meantime, the Environment Agency is carrying out much of the background work. It has various roles in ensuring that we are in a position to adopt the regulatory regime once it is finally agreed. Meanwhile, the Environment Agency has been developing its own strategy, which was put out to consultation and which ended in September last year. I hope that by the end of this month, the agency board advisory group will consider a paper on how to take that further. The final stage of the implementation plan will go to the agency board in approximately May of this year.
	That outlines the work already being undertaken by the main enforcement agency. In addition, much work has been done by industry and other interested organisations. I pay tribute in particular to the stakeholder forum to which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred and of which he is chair. It has played an important role in developing thinking on the new EU strategy and has engaged many stakeholders. The fact that it has operated—stopgap or not—as an effective forum is a result of the chairmanship of the noble Earl. In particular, the contribution of that forum's member organisations and the work done in preparing the UK for the commission's working groups, were particularly welcome. We look to the forum to continue to develop its views on the new EU chemical strategy as it develops. In addition, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have, along with their officials, held a wide range of meetings with stakeholders in this area, and the process is continuing.
	Several noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Hooper, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, underlined the importance of the chemical sector to our economy and the employment situation. It is one of our major industries and major success stories over many decades. It is therefore important that we do not do anything in the process that undermines the competitiveness of the chemicals industry and, to some extent, also the downstream industry. It is therefore important that we act in partnership with the industry when introducing the regime and with regard to the operation of the process of enforcement and information flow.
	It is also important that we engage the downstream industry. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred to the problems of knowing precisely to what uses some of the chemicals are put in the downstream industry. If the legislation is not carefully constructed, some of the impacts of downstream use could have severe consequences in environmental and safety terms and in economic terms if the legislation were geared in the wrong way or inadequately took account of the impact of those industries—a wide range of industries use chemical products.
	Therefore, the two-way flow of information along the supply chain is particularly important, as is how it is managed. We need to provide the correct information for safe use and we also need to engage all parts of that chain in the operation. In this area, as in others, carrying out robust regulatory impact assessments is important. The Government's existing partial RIA, prepared on the basis of the Commission's White Paper, covers some of these industry-wide issues. We shall need to update that as the legislative proposals become more concrete. More work is needed in that area in relation to the impact on both the UK industry and the industry Europe-wide.
	We were right to be reminded, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, of the basic problem that we are attempting to tackle and of the detrimental impact that the misuse of, and exposure to, some chemicals has on human beings and, indeed, on the environment. Organophosphates are a particularly drastic example of that and past agricultural use of organophosphates, in particular, is a major area of concern. That is why we are continuing to take the utmost precautions.
	I note the noble Countess's remarks in relation to post-marketing surveillance. We support the need for such surveillance and we see an important role for industry in carrying it out. We are discussing, and will discuss further, with all stakeholders what form a post-marketing surveillance system should take.
	This regime is directed principally at chemicals and the use of those chemicals manufactured within the European Union. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said in his opening remarks, it is also important that we take account of the effect of imported substances and imported articles. With regard to articles manufactured in the UK or within the European Union, the substances used will already have been registered and their risk to the environment or to human health will be subjected to appropriate controls.
	However, we do not have the same degree of control over substances in articles imported into the EU from outside. If those substances are completely uncontrolled, then naturally the normal economic drivers will encourage manufacturing industry to relocate. The risk to human health and to the environment may be exacerbated if we switch to imported goods. Therefore, I believe that the noble Earl's reference to the need to take a wider than European approach to this matter must ultimately be the appropriate course for us to take. Thus, issues that go wider than the EU are involved here.
	The noble Earl also referred, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to the WTO implications, which form an important aspect of this issue. The Government are concerned to ensure that the EU legislation which is finally adopted is defensible in WTO terms. We do not wish to see the important goals of this policy in terms of protection of health and the environment put at risk because of the problems for international trade. Frankly, we know that the United States is already interested in this policy and is increasingly exercised about its potential consequences. Therefore, we need to keep an eye on how it is developed and presented and how it becomes acceptable to our trading partners in this respect. The successful implementation of the legislation is, in part, dependent on it being acceptable to our WTO partners.
	One of the most critical remarks made during the course of the debate concerned the timetable. It is a vexed issue and, as all speakers have underlined, the need for action is urgent. Yet the legislation will be complex; it will be far- reaching; and it runs into all the international as well as EU-based difficulties. Poorly constructed legislation has been known in the European Union, and it would be disastrous were this legislation to be half-baked.
	We recognise the need for urgency but also welcome the statement of the Environment Council in December that it would undertake a formal consultation this year. We would encourage the Commission to consult as widely as possible and to take into account these wider issues.
	As to the precise timetable, we understand that the Commission may make proposals for legislation within the next few months. To take up the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, we understand that the Greek presidency does not plan to put a priority on that in terms of examining the proposals during its presidency. Nevertheless, if the proposals are put forward, we would intend to use the time to consult widely within the UK. If they are not, we shall continue to work with the Commission during the next six months to ensure that those proposals are effectively developed.
	Having said that, and reverting to the initial assessment of the timetable by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on such complex pieces of legislation it is difficult to say when the process is likely to finish. Frankly, I would be at least as cautious as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who said the end of 2005. Under the present process our assessment might be even slightly later than that; 2006 would be my guess at this point. We obviously want to ensure that we speed up that timetable as far as we can without running into the difficulties of having inadequate or misconstructed legislation in the process.
	The Government understand that the Commission is working on a series of building blocks as a method of breaking down that task. That seems sensible. A final decision on whether there will be one piece of legislation or four pieces of legislation has not yet been taken. Nevertheless, the Government expect that the legislation will take the form of regulations rather than directives, which simplifies the matter slightly, but the timescale is still complex and major decisions on its format have yet to be taken.
	Thankfully, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, summarised for us the views of the Government's recent comment on this in December, our three objectives being efficiency and workability; minimising animal testing and maintaining or enhancing the competitiveness of the industry. Those are our three prime objectives. In addition, there is one other. The Government will want to see a system that is transparent and which is understandable to all parties, including not only the industry but also consumers, workers and other users of the substances with whom we are dealing.
	That requires effective drafting and, in the course of such drafting, effective negotiation, discussion and consultation with not only the industry which produces these items but also the wide variety of industries and others who use them. That process is already under way both at European and UK level. If we can conduct that process as rapidly as possible we stand a chance of not only meeting the timetable I have just outlined but possibly slightly enhancing it. However, that is not a Government commitment. The processes of the European Union are well known to your Lordships who have taken part in this debate. It is most important to get on to the statute book of the European Union effective, enforceable and understandable legislation, which we can make work here within the UK.
	Meanwhile, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the Select Committee in both its former and current composition and, in particular, all noble Lords who took part in the debate.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. At this late hour and in the light of what the Minister has said I shall make one point only. If we are to have delayed legislation—and I fear that we shall have some delays—it is even more important that the Government should take note of what we said about the importance of effective co-ordination and activity by Defra, by English Nature, by the Environment Agency and by British government organisations. They need to get on with the work that has to be done. We found quite big gaps in that respect. I hope that the Government will seize the opportunity, as we await the Commission's proposals, to get on with those urgent tasks.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at eleven o'clock.